Political Theory

Re: Public Utilities?

kingmonkey — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:14:00 GMT

Point taken.

Re: Public Utilities?

Stranger — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:04:23 GMT

kingmonkey:
No, the issue at hand is how do you take the utility monopoly away from cities. I'm sure some cities do a fine job of providing power, water and sewage disposal but should not that be in the hands of private companies? I believe it should be. So the question at hand, the issue at hand for this imaginary scenario is how does one migrate from a public system to a private one? How does one decide what to do with the infrastructure that has already been built by the city with taxpayer dollars?

To ask the question is to answer it. Turn the city into a private company.

Re: Public Utilities?

kingmonkey — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:02:19 GMT

No, the issue at hand is how do you take the utility monopoly away from cities. I'm sure some cities do a fine job of providing power, water and sewage disposal but should not that be in the hands of private companies? I believe it should be. So the question at hand, the issue at hand for this imaginary scenario is how does one migrate from a public system to a private one? How does one decide what to do with the infrastructure that has already been built by the city with taxpayer dollars?

Re: Public Utilities?

Stranger — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:23:54 GMT

That is not the point. That cities have been granted the powers of government does not imply that they are not, by nature, estates. To try to disintegrate cities because they have the powers of government makes little sense. Taking their powers away is what resolves the issue.

Re: Public Utilities?

kingmonkey — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:12:09 GMT

I'm going to have to disagree with that. A city might have traditionally been an estate or a commune but it is most certainly not that today. A city today IS a government. Cities have charters, cities have elected councils and those councils create laws. Cities also tax, cities also police, cities have executive, legislative and judicial branches. Therefore cities are in every way, in every aspect a government. That is why they are refered to as "local governments."

Re: Public Utilities?

Stranger — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:38:22 GMT

The problem of urban infrastructure stems from a confusion as to the nature of a city. It is not a government. Traditionally it was an estate or a commune. This is a form of property. To ask how to privatize a city's sewer system is like asking how to privatize the drain pipes in one's home; the question simply does not make any sense.

Public Utilities?

kingmonkey — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:27:10 GMT

I've been trying to work this out for a long time but can't seem to reach a suitable answer. Let's assume libertarians completely take over a cities government and they are now anxious to began instituting major reforms which will result in lower taxes and less government in that city. How does one take on the utilities that most cities "provide" for their citizens?

How does one privatize the electric, water, sewage, natural gas, etc. that a city provides? If you sold them outright you might end up with yet another monopoly, a private one yes, but still a monopoly over the utilities in that city. Or could the city lease out rights to private companies who would pay the city for the maintenance of the lines, pipes, etc. Full ownership is never transfered. The city retains ownership of those lines but the private companies must pay a fee for the maintenance and repairs.

My problem is how does one take something that was once owned by a city where the people had no freedom to choose whom they bought those services from to a system where the people are now free to choose, allowing market forces to work. How do you allocate the infrustructure the city has already built with taxpayer dollars?

End.