Political Theory

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

Spideynw — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:27:24 GMT

AndrewKemendo:

I recognize that there are alternatives - to include moving. However, I am more apt to believe that before someone moves they will organize to form a coercive state with their fellow citizens. That's my point. The - people will just move - argument isn't satisfying beyond short term.

If we can figure out a way to overcome the problems which occur with natural monopolies such that the general populous doesn't start wanting a state again then we will have achieved our aims.

See Macfalls answer. There would be no monopoly without the state. All monopolies exist because of the state. People most certainly can dig more holes to divert water.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

JParker — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:28:56 GMT

You need only look at the places in the US this has already happened. Water service has been privatized in towns, as has been discussed on this forum before. Average joe doesnt know or care a thing about it, but he notices when the water price goes down, and when the weird taste from the rusty lines goes away because the new private company fixes them w/o raising the rates. Just because you're in a HOA by virtue of living in the neighborhood doesnt mean you have to be involved in its operation. The same could apply to this situation.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

AndrewKemendo — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:35:36 GMT

It seems like in order for those solutions to gain momentum they would have to be equal to or superior to the state production for the common man, in that, the effort put forth by the average Joe would have to be about the same (flip a switch, turn a faucet). Do you think that would be the case?

Remember please that I am generally talking about the average joe who doesnt know a utility function from a utility company. Maybe I dont have enough faith in the average person but I can see my current neighbors agreeing to organizing a coercive state over doing a little extra work themselves.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

JParker — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:26:06 GMT

AndrewKemendo:

How can the currently state monopolized services, which the majority of city dwellers rely on, be provided during the transition from a state control to no state such that the people affected, which have no strong feelings toward either state or anti-state policies (which would likely be the majority), would be impacted most minimally in order to prevent a widescale rally and reorganization of a state like monopolizer?

Run on much? ;-) The solution to this has been presented several times in this thread. The people could form a cooperative that owns the lines, and they can select a private company to facilitate the service. This invites competition and lower prices. Further, if the private company is not providing the level of service the citizens require, they fire them and hire a new one. Other companies would be allowed to come in and build up their own above-ground lines, or perhaps there would be a leasing arrangement between the citizens (who own the lines) and several different companies (such as with deregulated electricity in places such as Texas). Not a perfect solution, but you cannot ignore that the infrastructure is already built. Might as well use it.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

AndrewKemendo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:24:02 GMT

All of the responses so far essentially say: The market would provide and would provide better than government. Of course it would, there is no doubt about that.

However, the real crux which I regrettably made halfway into the discussion, is larger than that, and perhaps should be a separate thread; and that is:

How can the currently state monopolized services, which the majority of city dwellers rely on, be provided during the transition from a state control to no state such that the people affected, which have no strong feelings toward either state or anti-state policies (which would likely be the majority), would be impacted most minimally in order to prevent a widescale rally and reorganization of a state like monopolizer?

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

Floyd — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:54:03 GMT

If it is profitable, then some one will compete, and they will figure out how. Entrepenuers are very good at that. Maybe, in the absence of government regulation, above-ground pipes could be used again and would represent an enormous cost savings (enough to make it profitable). It is a hypothetical situation, and there is no way to know what solutions millions of people in NYC (or other city/locale) may or may not come up with. To know this would require omniscience- and not having that, in short, is the main problem with central economic planning.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

Marko — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:09:52 GMT

AndrewKemendo:

So here we are, the state just collapsed and a private person came and bought the wastewater treatment plant.

How did he buy it?

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

ama gi — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:38:09 GMT

Business improvement districts, homeowners' associations and the like could purchase a controlling interest in water and other infrastructure to prevent unwanted monopoly pricing.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

MacFall — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:41:01 GMT

krazy kaju:

The company that provides water and sewer services could become a consumer cooperative.

Cooperative? Obviously you are some sort of a left-libertartarian, promoting such socialist nonsense.*

*Sarcasm

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

krazy kaju — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:39:34 GMT

The company that provides water and sewer services could become a consumer cooperative.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

macsnafu — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:23:48 GMT

The Morning Star:

Why would privatizing the sewers be any more troublesome than privatizing natural gas, electricity or the phonelines?

I agree. Those things are considered "natural monopolies', too, although it's really just a case of limited imagination. Back when the phone companies were expanding, in the early 1900's, there was also the question of mutiple phone companies and services. Bell Telephone successfully argued that phone service was a "natural monopoly", in spite of the fact that the phone companies were working out practical ways of sharing the phone lines, instead of trying to run multiple phone lines everywhere. And eventually, after decades of the AT&T phone monopoly, technology provided an alternative in the form of the cellular phone, which needs no phone lines.

So, a municpality has one set of water pipes and sewer pipes that run to each house and building. Obviously, mutiple pipes could be set up, although just as obviously, it would be expensive and unprofitable unless the owner of the first set was charging ridiculously high prices for service.

Another alternative would be bottled water, or better yet, water delivery services, complete with appropriately-sized water tanks in the homes and buildings,, instead of, or complementing, the use of the water being piped to the home. A slight redesign or reimplementation of the plumbing to a house or buidling wouldn't require an excessive expenditure. Take a look at how water purifying systems are added to existing homes, for example. Adding a water pump to recycle used water would be another way to conserve on water usage, a worthwile measure if the price of water gets expensive.

At the other end is where the water for the municipal system is coming from. There could easily be competition in supplying the water at that end from multiple sources.

The above is just a starting point. Other possibilities will become more apparent if we ever actually get to that point of actually having to worry about where our water is coming from. But the main point remains: this is not an insurmountable problem just because someone lacks imagination, because other people have plenty of imagination, especially where solving that problem means large profits.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

Stranger — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:23:33 GMT

AndrewKemendo:

I recognize that there are alternatives - to include moving. However, I am more apt to believe that before someone moves they will organize to form a coercive state with their fellow citizens. That's my point. The - people will just move - argument isn't satisfying beyond short term.

If we can figure out a way to overcome the problems which occur with natural monopolies such that the general populous doesn't start wanting a state again then we will have achieved our aims.

There is no such thing as a natural monopoly in a free market for land as the size and scale of land property will adjust to solve any of these problems.

As such, if people know that they can buy and sell these "natural monopolies" and merge them into land properties, there will be no need for a government.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:19:10 GMT

But even if it were the case that leaving some "natural monopolies" in the hands of private entrepreneurs were suboptimal, it would still not follow that we "need" government. Au contraire, the industries in question could simply have widely dispersed share ownership or something of that nature. Which means the structure of the firm would perhaps need to differ from the usual firm, making it a cooperative or something like that, but that'd undercut any argument from efficiency for government from the get go.

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

ivanfoofoo — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:07:45 GMT

The question here is not if the market is a perfect solution to the problem. The question here is whether, given the market is not perfect, is it better or worse than other alternatives in their way to get to the expected results. Is justified a government, or its property of the service by it because of the imperfectness of the market?

Re: Privatization of public water infrastructure

AndrewKemendo — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:57:32 GMT

I recognize that there are alternatives - to include moving. However, I am more apt to believe that before someone moves they will organize to form a coercive state with their fellow citizens. That's my point. The - people will just move - argument isn't satisfying beyond short term.

If we can figure out a way to overcome the problems which occur with natural monopolies such that the general populous doesn't start wanting a state again then we will have achieved our aims.