Philosophy Of Liberty - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Nomad · 10-19-2003, 06:30 PM

<A href="http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf">Philosophy Of Liberty</A>

This Flash Presentation Is from ... The International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL).

http://www.isil.org/

HarmlessRabbit · 10-19-2003, 08:11 PM

I couldn't make it more than 30 seconds into that. It seemed like a paragraph of text stretched into a flash presentation with graphics that didn't really add anything to the text.

Personally, I like a lot of aspects of libertarianism, but I do think there is a place for heavy government regulation. For example, as we have seen, power privatization has been a colossal failure in the USA, mostly due to the misguided idea that a "free market" can reign in an industry where a new power plant can take at least 10 years to build.

It's this slavish dedication to the free market above all else that turns me off about libertarianism, otherwise I would probably call myself one.

Ustwo · 10-19-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
For example, as we have seen, power privatization has been a colossal failure in the USA, mostly due to the misguided idea that a "free market" can reign in an industry where a new power plant can take at least 10 years to build.

I'd say just the opposite. Where the government trys to play with the power companies with price fixing (natural gas in the east) and extreme regulation (California) you have problems, in areas where competition is allowed to work, it works just fine and doesn't cost extra tax payer dollars.

Now thats just my feeling on it based on how well it works in my state (or lack there of) and why our utility monoply is having such troubles. On the plus side towns are starting to buy cheaper power from other states, long live the free market.

Since you think its such a horrible faliure, maybe you can give a few examples, and show were government control is better.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-19-2003, 08:50 PM

Thank you Communism!!!!

HarmlessRabbit · 10-19-2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Since you think its such a horrible faliure, maybe you can give a few examples, and show were government control is better.

Sure, let's look at Enron. The timeline for Enron is a pretty good read:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.ht.../enron/1127125

http://www.platts.com/features/enron/timeline.shtml

Also, this BBC story is a REALLY good summary of enron, the best I have seen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...ne/default.stm

I can confidently say that Enron would not have happened if power companies were not allowed to privatize.

I'm unsure how you blame the california problem on overregulation. History has shown that there was no real energy shortage in California during the power crisis, and the companies like Enron were using scams with names like Death Star to dupe the public out of billions.

A truly free market depends on low barriers to entry, that's just Adam Smith Econ 101. A power market, where power plants can cost hundreds of milllions and take 10-20 years to build , is a terrible place to have a free market.

I'm not against states being able to sell their excess power to other states. However, I think state-owned and state-planned power systems are a more efficient way to supply power to the masses.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-19-2003, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Thank you Communism!!!!

Mojo, I've seen you make some good posts here. It's really disappointing when you toss off one-liner trolls when I know you're capable of better.

Ustwo · 10-19-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I can confidently say that Enron would not have happened if power companies were not allowed to privatize.

Thats true, but so what? When missmanagement and fraud happens in the private sector we invesitgate and put people in jail. If only the state and federal governement had such rules.

Quote:

I'm unsure how you blame the california problem on overregulation. History has shown that there was no real energy shortage in California during the power crisis, and the companies like Enron were using scams with names like Death Star to dupe the public out of billions.

From what I understand it was the price-fixing of the State government along with a 25% reliance on out of state power coupled with a draught which led to the mess. There wasn't a free market in CA, you had a artificially controlled one.

It was the STUPID system set up by the govt of California which allowed them to dupe the public out of billions.

Also from what I read (and no I don't know of the source right now) there have been no new power plants in CA for quite a while, due to the stringent and very expensive regulations in California law. Its been a long time so I can't list them, but based on how crazy they are in my field, I can't see them being any better in the energy industry

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-19-2003, 09:20 PM

I was just merely pointing out how Capitalism kicked Communism's ass in the last half century due to the lack of (or a lesser role) of Government being involved.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-19-2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Thats true, but so what? When missmanagement and fraud happens in the private sector we invesitgate and put people in jail. If only the state and federal governement had such rules.

I was answering your request <i>Since you think its such a horrible faliure, maybe you can give a few examples</i>.

You asked for information. I gave it to you. You agreed that it was correct then said the information doesn't matter. Enron was the largest bankruptcy in the history of the world. Perhaps you can show me some government sector failures on that scale? Or any massive failure of a government-run power system?

Quote:

From what I understand it was the price-fixing of the State government along with a 25% reliance on out of state power coupled with a draught which led to the mess. There wasn't a free market in CA, you had a artificially controlled one.

It was the STUPID system set up by the govt of California which allowed them to dupe the public out of billions.

You understand incorrectly.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...s_capitol.html

Quote:

Briefly, here's how a few of the scams worked:

"Death Star": Enron would overschedule its expected power transmissions to create the illusion that the state's grid would be overloaded, then receive state payment for "relieving" the congestion. The beauty of this con, the company's memos noted, is that "Enron gets paid for moving energy to relieve congestion without actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion." It's the sort of protection deal that would make Tony Soprano proud.

"Fat Boy": This scam (aka "Inc-ing") also involved overscheduling power transmission -- for example, to a company subsidiary that didn't really need all of it. Then Enron would sell the "excess" power to the state at a premium.

"Ricochet": Also called "megawatt laundering" (by analogy to money laundering), Ricochet was the power equivalent of a real-estate land flip: buy in-state power cheaply, flip it out-of-state to an intermediary, then re-sell it to California at a highly inflated "imported" price.

There were others, but you get the general idea: the only "invisible hand" in this pseudo-free market -- heavily promoted by Enron and its lobbyist allies -- was Enron's. The Enron memos also say that traders from other companies (with even larger interests in the California market) were doing the same, and now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it will force them to cough up the evidence. Yet California began complaining to FERC as early as May of 1999 that the big energy companies were manipulating the market for billions of dollars. The regulators did nothing.

Note that the FERC regulators were all Bush appointees.

Quote:

Also from what I read (and no I don't know of the source right now) there have been no new power plants in CA for quite a while, due to the stringent and very expensive regulations in California law. Its been a long time so I can't list them, but based on how crazy they are in my field, I can't see them being any better in the energy industry

There has not been a power crisis here since the fall of Enron. Yes, California has a lot of rules for constructing a power plant. We have a lot of environmental activists who care about the impact of power plants. We have earthquakes. We have a lot of people.

So, to get back to the original point. I like a lot of what Libertarianism has to say, but there are specific tenets to Libertarianism that I have a problem with, and one of those is that all free-markets are good.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's completely deregulate the airline industry! After all, people are in control of their own actions! So, people will have to decide for themselves each time they board a plane whether the individual pilot is qualified. (we won't certify the pilot, too much regulation.) The plane is safe. (we won't have third-party inspectors, too much regulation.) And if the airport is well run. (again, no need for the FAA, too much regulation.) We'll also let the airlines themselves decide whether the pilot information and safety information should be public or secret, and free or for-sale.

Would this be workable? Of course not. When libertarians talk about the "free market" whether in power, in the stock market, or in airlines, they conveniently tend to overlook the massive amount of regulation required to make a "free market" work.

But again, I like a lot of the Libertarian Ideals, they just sometimes go too far.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-19-2003, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I was just merely pointing out how Capitalism kicked Communism's ass in the last half century due to the lack of (or a lesser role) of Government being involved.

Given that no power companies were privatized until the 80's, when Russia was already in steep decline, I don't see how your point applies to mine.

In fact, I would have a stronger argument than you if I said that heavy government regulation of power companies helped defeat communism.

Ustwo · 10-19-2003, 10:30 PM

I found this very interesting.....

Quote:

MANIFESTO ON THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS

Generated and endorsed by an ad-hoc
group of concerned professors, former
public officials, and consultants.

Convened under the auspices of the
Institute of Management, Innovation,
and Organization at the University of
California, Berkeley.

PREAMBLE

We, the undersigned, an ad-hoc group of professionals with experience in regulatory and energy economics, share a desire to help end the current crises, and to do so by using public policy solutions that enhance consumer welfare and economic well-being.

We have convened under the auspices of the Institute of Management, Innovation and Organization at the University of California, Berkeley, and embrace faculty from other universities, former public officials, and consultants. We put forward our own ideas. We do not pretend to be "representative;" nevertheless we cut across a wide range of backgrounds and expertise. Our common goal is to see California solve its current energy crisis and develop a well-performing electricity sector.

We have come together quickly because we are alarmed. A financial crisis caused by extremely high wholesale prices compounded by concerns about ability to pay has exacerbated already tight supplies and led inevitably to rolling blackouts. Rolling blackouts impose tremendous social and economic costs on California society and threaten to wreck its economy. The situation is very serious and endangers the livelihoods of many citizens in and out of state. The situation does not appear to be well understood.

Electricity has now become a political commodity, not an economic one. As a consequence, we no longer have just an electricity crisis; we have a serious financial crisis as well. If not managed astutely, the collateral damage to other industries and states could well be quantitatively more significant than the direct damages to California electricity consumers and distributors.

This manifesto endeavors to provide a clear, fair and effective way out of the current financial-energy crisis.

MANIFESTO ON THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS

The Crisis

California is confronting an unprecedented electricity crisis which threatens to wreck its economy and cause collateral damage throughout the West. The initial causes of the high wholesale market prices reflect a complex mixture of a faulty restructuring plan, faulty regulation, environmental regulations, and unanticipated reductions in the supply and increases in the demand for electricity. These problems have now been compounded by the potential financial insolvency of the investor-owned utilities. The financial crisis must be solved immediately. Accomplished properly, there will then be the opportunity to develop and apply long-term solutions that enhance supply, reduce prices and encourage conservation.

The crisis had its origins in mistakes and miscalculations at the time the electricity sector was restructured. Two of many shortcomings stand out at the present time. First, utilities were strongly encouraged to divest a substantial portion of their generation, while being blocked by CPUC regulations from entering into stable long-term contracts. Put differently, the utilities were forced to procure their unmet needs on the spot market where extreme price volatility has been realized, especially in the past year. Second, California froze retail rates at low levels and banked on low wholesale prices to support a profit margin high enough to enable the utilities to pay off historical, uneconomic investments.

This arrangement appeared to work with only modest problems for two years. However, since May of this year, wholesale market prices soared, due to rising demand, dramatically higher natural gas prices, lower imports from other states, and strategic behavior by suppliers. Fixed retail prices blocked conservation efforts by insulating consumers from market realities and reduced consumer incentives to turn to competitive retailers. The heavy reliance on spot market purchases, combined with demand that was unresponsive to prices, helped drive prices higher.

Meanwhile, the investor-owned utilities are losing money on the electricity they buy for resale to their customers. The inversion of the typical wholesale-retail price relationship has brought these utilities to the brink of bankruptcy. Perceived risk of nonpayment has in turn caused generators to be reluctant suppliers, even at dramatically elevated wholesale prices. The natural reluctance of suppliers to supply voluntarily when they did not expect to get paid was a substantial contributor to rising prices and rolling blackouts during the past month.

The destruction of the utilities' credit and the resulting responses by suppliers has shattered all vestiges of a normal market. As a consequence, California now has both a financial crisis and an electricity supply crisis.

The first crisis must be dealt with immediately before it gets further out of hand. If the credit worthiness of the investor-owned utilities can be restored, California can both solve the immediate supply shortage problems resulting from credit risks and then look to proper long-term solutions to its electricity problems.

Restoring Market Stability and Credibility

Solving the financial crisis will require sharing the pain amongst the various stakeholders. But an essential element of the solution is to raise retail prices on at least the volume of electricity which the investor-owned utilities do not self supply and to commit to recovery of a sufficient fraction of their accumulated debt to allow them to return to the credit markets to finance their obligations to suppliers and their ongoing investment responsibilities. Raising rates would have the salutary effect of both causing some reduction in demand (which would itself help reduce wholesale prices) while simultaneously restoring financial viability to the utilities, thereby eliminating a risk premium in the current wholesale supply price of electricity and bringing more supplies to California, reducing the likelihood of shortages. Restoring the credit worthiness of buyers would both reassure investors in existing plants that they will get paid if they supply and reinstate the confidence of investors in the many new generation projects in the construction and permitting pipeline that their investments will pay off in the future. A virtuous circle of this kind could settle down the wholesale market quickly. Unfortunately, there is no other way out. Either retail prices go up, or the frequency of rolling blackouts will accelerate, absent even more costly and draconian governmental measures.

The long-run solution requires creating an environment in which the market can work more effectively. Four key elements must be an integral part of that solution: freedom to engage in long-term contracts, retail price flexibility, competition at both the wholesale and retail levels, and more effective cooperation between federal and state regulators to fix a variety of market imperfections and resulting market performance problems. Some of this will take time, but experience in other jurisdictions in the US and abroad indicates that benefits from deregulation are indeed achievable.

Quick action must be taken to manage the crisis. It is also important to avoid actions which will make matters worse, or simply push the problems on to taxpayers. In particular, a state takeover of the business would make matters worse, as would turning the State into a permanent electricity purchasing authority. It would also be unfortunate if the State were itself to commit to long-term contracts for a large portion of California's electricity needs. The State's credentials as an astute player in the electricity market aren't impressive, and there is no reason to expect major improvement in the future. Accordingly, emergency state contracts should be avoided if at all possible. Nor would the State buying up existing generation assets add to supply. In the end, new power plants are needed, and the State should focus on creating a supportive environment for necessary new private investment. State ownership is not a solution at all – merely a guarantee that the taxpayers will be saddled with additional obligations for decades to come.

In crafting new arrangements to solve the short-term problems, two fundamental points must be recognized. First, putting questions of bankruptcy law to one side, there must be a firm commitment to pay all legitimate power bills, those so far incurred as well as those to be incurred in the future. Such arrangements will require some sharing of the pain amongst the various stakeholders. Second, there must be a firm commitment to raise the retail price at least for incremental energy usage to a level sufficient to cover the bills and provide an incentive for conservation and demand-side responses.

We see no escape from the harsh reality that the California Public Utilities Commission must raise customer prices at least for incremental electricity usage. For now, the major utilities can maintain existing rates for the volume of electricity that they generate themselves or already have under lower-cost long-term contracts. But the retail prices for any usage above some base level must be raised to the market price. This approach should preserve the commitment to maintain rates for some portion of the electricity production over which California has control. It would also promote conservation, including voluntary demand reductions and self-supply efforts – which, in turn, will help reduce wholesale prices by taking some pressure off the market. Time-of-use rates would be even better, where metering is available. But quick action is required to ensure that retail prices reflect fundamental scarcity. Each additional day under the current unsustainable price caps adds to the problem and makes the crisis more difficult to resolve.

Immediate commitments to meet obligations and raise the retail prices on all power not under California's control would improve conditions for longer-term contracts, and reassure investors in new California power plants. Without these commitments, rational suppliers will continue to demand high spot prices. Anticipation that future spot prices will be high, will cause long-term contract prices to be high. Furthermore, the chance that some obligations might not be met will also keep prices high. But if the market going forward can include reduced demand, required spot and contract prices should fall.

There is no other way out. Either retail prices must go up, or blackouts will continue with the consequent high costs to the California economy. Facing the pain now should reduce the ultimate price increase. We must put the horse before the cart. We must raise the retail price for electricity usage for at least those volumes that cannot be secured at existing rates. Only then should we seek contracts to help stabilize prices for the two- or three-year transition until more permanent solutions can be put in place, specially as new power plants already approved (totaling some 6,000MW) come on line over the next two years.

A number of groups and individuals have expressed concerns that wholesale market prices have increased beyond what would be expected merely from changes in supply and demand conditions in a competitive market as a result of suppliers engaging in strategic behavior aimed at reducing supplies and driving up prices. We are of different opinions regarding the existence or importance of the effects of such inappropriate behavior. However, it is clear that the faith of many California stakeholders and government officials in competitive electricity markets will only be restored if these market power issues are properly and fully evaluated and resolved. Accordingly, we urge FERC, the CPUC and the ISOs Market Surveillance Committee to work together to gather and analyze the information necessary to identify any such problems and to implement market reforms to fix them. At the very least, resolving the allegations of market abuse in a fair way, and implementing any indicated reforms, will help to gain support for the view that the retail price increases are justified by changes in competitive market conditions. However, we must not let this debate detract from dealing with the fundamentals.

Looking To The Long Run

The long-run reforms that will ensure that similar crises do not reappear in the future require creating an environment in which the market can work. California's flawed efforts at deregulation have not yet allowed this to occur. For the price mechanism to allocate resources effectively, supply and demand pressures must be allowed expression, and not be impeded by unnecessary rules and regulations. Competition must exist to discipline pricing. Absent these elements, market solutions simply won't produce satisfactory results. Experience in other jurisdictions in the U.S. and abroad indicates that effective deregulation works – and works well – where adequate care is taken in restructuring rules and market design.

Three key elements compose the right long term approach: freedom to engage in long-term contracts, retail competition and pricing flexibility, and a competitive market environment. It is critical that distribution companies be allowed to enter into long-term contracts in a way that is symmetrical with the commitments of their customers to pay for the associated costs. Long-term contracts provide generators the confidence that they can recover their investments, while granting utilities and their customers protection against price spikes. In the long run we expect to see participants in the industry adopt a judicious balance of long term, medium term, and short-term (spot) contracts. The investment and permitting environment must also be such that additional power plants can be built expeditiously. Only by allowing new entry will rigorous competition characterize the marketplace, letting Californians enjoy supply reliability, efficient supply, and competitive prices. As the long term contracting process takes hold, the influence of spot market prices on rates will drop dramatically. While spot prices may remain high until the real electricity supply expands, Californians' reliance on the spot market will be reduced.

Second, California should not abandon its goal of fostering retail competition. New competitors need the ample, stable and reliable electricity supplies that a reformed market system will promote. Retail competition can help bring new types of contracts and metering systems, and better awareness of environmental effects as entrants introduce "green" packages, and demand-side innovations. This is another reason why consumers must pay the real cost of electricity, as retail competition cannot thrive in an environment in which supply companies lack retail pricing freedom. As a consequence, companies involved in retail supply, including the California utilities, should be allowed to pass-through their energy costs in a competitive environment.

Finally, oversight of the electricity business will always be needed. The cornerstones of electricity regulation must be oversight of the distribution function, and ensuring that any anticompetitive behavior by suppliers is circumscribed.

Critical Mistakes California Must Avoid Now

California must act quickly to manage the crisis, and we have outlined the essential elements of the solution. The atmosphere is currently too politicized. We are fearful that a rush to seek easy solutions will make matters worse, and shackle the economy and consumers for many years to come. Accordingly, we also offer advice on what not to do.

1. Don't solve today's crisis by foreclosing tomorrow's solutions.

As explained earlier, we now face an immediate financial crisis in finding credit (and cash) to keep the lights on. But this crisis is different than the longer-term answer to California's energy woes. We need to bridge the immediate financial gap without making quick – and ill-considered – irreversible commitments that will hamstring future solutions. Solving the financial crisis will also calm the electricity markets and allow better long-run answers to be found.

For example, the current crisis can be addressed without problematic steps such as trying to isolate California from the western electricity market, turning the State into the permanent electricity purchasing authority for consumers, or committing taxpayer funds to large energy-related projects. Thoughtful long-run answers will be easier to recognize once the crisis is eliminated.

2. Don't over-commit to long-run electricity contracts.

Electricity prices are now high because of the credit risks of the utilities, high natural gas prices, reduced supplies from other states, unprecedented outages of generating plants in California, high prices for NOx emissions credits, and inflexible electricity demands by customers. Prices will fall when the financial crisis is managed, and retail price increases and conservation help moderate customer demands.

Now is precisely the wrong time for the State to commit to long-term contracts for a large portion of California's electricity needs, since below-market prices now can only come at the expense of above-market consumer prices in years to come – which would create new problems. Emergency State contracts should last no more than two years, and should be kept small.

3. Don't nationalize California's electricity system.

New government ownership of generation and distribution facilities won't solve the crisis or deliver below-market power prices. The State must pay full market value for any plants it acquires, even though record electricity prices also mean record purchase prices for energy facilities. For consumers to obtain bargain electricity rates would then require permanent taxpayer subsidies – saddling the State budget in perpetuity.

It is bad public policy to have taxpayers take up the risks of financing new generation plants in a volatile market. The risks of electricity investments can be managed by the private sector, where profit and loss incentives will minimize electricity costs for California.

In Sum

California has a crisis which has been deepened by inaction, and by political tradeoffs trumping good public policy analysis. Time is running out. Electricity should not be a political commodity. The laws of supply and demand cannot be ignored except at great peril.

Its got a nice list of signatures on it.
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/news/ca...ty_crisis.html

HarmlessRabbit · 10-19-2003, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I found this very interesting.....

Its got a nice list of signatures on it.
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/news/ca...ty_crisis.html

It is interesting, if only as a historical artifact of how far in the sand businesspeople and business professors were about the true extent of the problem. Enron declared bankruptcy in November of 2001 (see the timelines I posted previously). That document is from January of 2001.

I'm waiting for those examples of the failures of publicly-operated power systems. I've shown my hand. It's time to show yours.

seretogis · 10-20-2003, 06:33 AM

First off, Enron is one power company. One corrupt power company. To suggest that because of one company that privatization is a failure, is ridiculous. Wherever you have positions of power (no pun intended), there will be corruption. The only difference between corrupt private companies and corrupt government agencies, is that private companies are eventually caught and held accountable (as much as rich white men can be held accountable in our legal system

).

A government agency is held much less accountable by the people, as there really is very little way for them to exercise power over it. If AT&T suddenly is revealed to be a corrupt bunch of hooligans, consumers can switch their local phone service to another provider. Hopefully, eventually, there will be several options for each consumer for any utility.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-20-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
A government agency is held much less accountable by the people, as there really is very little way for them to exercise power over it. If AT&T suddenly is revealed to be a corrupt bunch of hooligans, consumers can switch their local phone service to another provider. Hopefully, eventually, there will be several options for each consumer for any utility.

I believe in the Libertarian idea of choice when it comes to, say, software, or groceries, or gas stations. But it seems to me that the idea of "consumer choice" on utilities is largely a farce. You're only going to have one water pipe, one gas pipe, one electricity line into your house, so the "choice" is really just rich people pushing monopoly money around. I have yet to see a successful consumer choice system.

In fact, LA was well served in the CA power crisis by their independent power system, while San Diego, an early adopter of power choice, got screwed.

It seems like perhaps there is a compromise. The government could operate and maintain the pipes, electric lines, and such and perhaps there could be limited competition for who gets to supply to those lines.

Food Eater Lad · 10-20-2003, 07:08 PM

Where in the constitution does it say that the government's job is to provide power? I thought the only three things the government was to do was provide a system to solve arguments ( courts), provide for the peace ( police) and provide for the defence?

Harmless are you saying that the constitution provides the means for the government to cook your steak?

HarmlessRabbit · 10-20-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Harmless are you saying that the constitution provides the means for the government to cook your steak?

Where in the constitution does it give the government the power to run the Federal Aviation Administration? All these rules regulating the flights of aircraft, the certification of pilots, and the safety of aircraft are obviously unconstitutional by your argument, yes?

Also, power is already heavily regulated. Or perhaps you think that nuclear power plants should be built by anyone with the money and desire to build them?

Actually, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. The 10th amendment says:

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think state-run power systems would be just fine.

Ustwo · 10-20-2003, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I'm waiting for those examples of the failures of publicly-operated power systems. I've shown my hand. It's time to show yours.

Was California your example of a private failure?

rogue49 · 10-20-2003, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
First off, Enron is one power company. One corrupt power company. To suggest that because of one company that privatization is a failure, is ridiculous. Wherever you have positions of power (no pun intended), there will be corruption. The only difference between corrupt private companies and corrupt government agencies, is that private companies are eventually caught and held accountable (as much as rich white men can be held accountable in our legal system ).

A government agency is held much less accountable by the people, as there really is very little way for them to exercise power over it. If AT&T suddenly is revealed to be a corrupt bunch of hooligans, consumers can switch their local phone service to another provider. Hopefully, eventually, there will be several options for each consumer for any utility.

Actually, it was found that several power companies were culpable in the deregulation fiasco in CA.
Enron's actions in this were just the tip of the iceberg,
their scandal & downfall were mostly related to the fact that they had cooked the books in their accounting and actual worth,
their actual assets didn't match their "claimed" assets.
The various power companies are still in court as the govt. tries to get back monies overcharge...and of course, they will only recover a fraction.

Even though I do agree with many Libertarian ideals,
it is an unfortunate necessity to have overview regulations
for certain industries...
since the scale of these industries affect the state & national infrastructure.
Utilities, Air Industry, Chemical, Oil, Some Environmental, etc.
Why?
Because these have become NECESSITIES for the stability of the nation & the lives that make it.
We cannot allow it to get out of hand in the first place, because too many people & business rely on it to survive.
The damage can be profound, even if caught after a reletively short time.
If released to supply and demand, the companies that already hold the majority, will milk the citizens & govt. for their profit.
As shown in CA, there are too few, and the costs of developing are too large to allow common business practices sway what we now live on.
Or at least as fast as CA allowed it, without tight rein as they released it.
It took YEARS to massage out the kinks of MA Bell and the split,
and even now, these (the Baby Bells, MCI and Sprint) are still much regulated.
But it DOES allow competition, just monitored.

As we have seen, each govt. philosphy is not good when the ideals are absolute.
We are really not a democracy, we are a federal republic.
And we are not completely capitalist, there is a bit of socialism as a safety net.
And we are not completely deregulated, there is a bit of control needed.

There is a balance to everything.

Food Eater Lad · 10-20-2003, 08:24 PM

I would say that the federal bailouts and interference in Airlines is causing big problems with that industry. Also, government licenses is covered by the court and dispute part of the government.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-20-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
I would say that the federal bailouts and interference in Airlines is causing big problems with that industry. Also, government licenses is covered by the court and dispute part of the government.

What's your point? I said amendment X clearly states that the states have the power to regulate electricity. You appear to be arguing with yourself.

Food Eater Lad · 10-20-2003, 08:59 PM

So you think the we will benifit from government controled services? What about bread? Or shoes? Whats to stop them from using the 10th admendment to justify socialism? I think you are over using this ademdment. I mean the founding fathers were clear cut capitalists and fought against England for daring to use government regulation to control things such as tea.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-20-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So you think the we will benifit from government controled services? What about bread? Or shoes? Whats to stop them from using the 10th admendment to justify socialism? I think you are over using this ademdment. I mean the founding fathers were clear cut capitalists and fought against England for daring to use government regulation to control things such as tea.

Your argument is based on such a clear lack of understanding of the constitution, american history, current history, and the current state of regulation in the USA that it is pointless for me to even begin to try to address it.

We have benefited, and are benefiting from government controlled services every day. I believe most power generated in the USA is still generated by public utilities. So this bizarre argument that I'm somehow trying to justify socialism is completely out of left field.

Food Eater Lad · 10-20-2003, 09:28 PM

So Three Mile Island is then proof of government control is great?

Food Eater Lad · 10-20-2003, 09:30 PM

Misunderstanding of the constitution? I am stating that the writers of the constituion fought, some personally, against government control of the free market. You are overstating the 10th admentment as a catch all for socialism.

Ustwo · 10-20-2003, 10:04 PM

Actually I need to side to some degree with those who think it should be nationally owned.

There DOES need to be some oversite for services, which is lost, would cripple or even destroy the nation. Power is one of those things, which if we don't have, we become our great grandparents again very quickly in terms of abilities (only without their knowlage of living without power). As such 100% private controlled is bad. There needs to be SOME regulation such that no one can turn off the lights on a whim, or due to poor management. Just like its illegal for air traffic controllers to strike, you need SOME sort of assurance that everying will keep working.

Now where I would differ is the extent of government control. I'm much happier with government oversite of a private company, then a government owned one. A private company as a rule will work harder, if you don't believe me, work in government a bit, and will see benifits of making the public happy with their service for the most part.

Ok its late, and I can hardly see so this will have to do, typos and all

Food Eater Lad · 10-20-2003, 10:37 PM

I am all for goverment watching over a privatly run power company. But a government controlled power industry? Gheese talk about a nightmare.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-20-2003, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
I am all for goverment watching over a privatly run power company. But a government controlled power industry? Gheese talk about a nightmare.

Um, Food Eater Lad, that's the way it is today. As of 2000, 26% of electricity generation was privately run.

I see no problems with government run electricity plants today. Privately-run plants led to the biggest bankruptcy in the history of the world.

Food Eater Lad, I'm not going to respond to your posts any longer unless you better research your points. These off-topic poorly-researched one liners aren't worth my time to respond to.

seretogis · 10-21-2003, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
There DOES need to be some oversite for services, which is lost, would cripple or even destroy the nation. Power is one of those things, which if we don't have, we become our great grandparents again very quickly in terms of abilities (only without their knowlage of living without power). As such 100% private controlled is bad. There needs to be SOME regulation such that no one can turn off the lights on a whim, or due to poor management. Just like its illegal for air traffic controllers to strike, you need SOME sort of assurance that everying will keep working.

Good point, but while the government may need to be in control of the infrastructure, I don't see why it should be necessary for the government to provide services to it. They can own the restaurant, but why should they be staffing it themselves?

Food Eater Lad · 10-21-2003, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Um, Food Eater Lad, that's the way it is today. As of 2000, 26% of electricity generation was privately run.

and you have valid back up for this information?
I see no problems with government run electricity plants today. Privately-run plants led to the biggest bankruptcy in the history of the world.

Food Eater Lad, I'm not going to respond to your posts any longer unless you better research your points. These off-topic poorly-researched one liners aren't worth my time to respond to.

So major blackouts by out dated equipment from a power plant accountable to no one is acceptqable to you? New Mexico lost power from one cigarette being tossed out s window, and we all know about the recent east coast problem. Lets here it for government management.
I dont know about you, but I would rather a company that wanted to make a profit and there fore have pleased customers than a government plant that wanted to spend the least money as possible in charge of electricity. Look at Nasa, using twenty year old computers to launch shuttles, is that what you want for a power company?

Food Eater Lad · 10-21-2003, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Um, Food Eater Lad, that's the way it is today. As of 2000, 26% of electricity generation was privately run.

I see no problems with government run electricity plants today. Privately-run plants led to the biggest bankruptcy in the history of the world.

Food Eater Lad, I'm not going to respond to your posts any longer unless you better research your points. These off-topic poorly-researched one liners aren't worth my time to respond to.

I assume you can also provide the stats on the quality of services for the private companies, with customer satisfaction as opposed to the services provide by the government plants and customer satisfaction? Or is this more stuff that is not worth your time to respond too?

HarmlessRabbit · 10-21-2003, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Good point, but while the government may need to be in control of the infrastructure, I don't see why it should be necessary for the government to provide services to it. They can own the restaurant, but why should they be staffing it themselves?

I can agree with that system. The government (probably on a state level to make it manageable, or on a county or city level in large urban areas) should own water supply lines, electricity supply lines, natural gas lines, phone lines and perhaps even things like cable tv and internet lines. Their job would be to keep a high level of service to every customer and charge the minimum possible to break even.

The suppliers into those lines could be municipally, privately, or co-op owned, just like today, and could compete on service level and price. I think there are still some issues about who gets to build a nuclear power plant where, but it would still be a better system.

Food Eater Lad · 10-21-2003, 11:10 AM

Figured you wouldnt put your money were your mouth is.

Darkblack · 10-21-2003, 11:20 AM

-edited. not worth getting another warning over.

filtherton · 10-22-2003, 07:45 PM

Lib. seems like an interesting idea, but i fail to see how it could be implemented, and how it could be implemented with safeguards to keep it from devovling into a system of monetary might makes right.

It seems similar to anarchy in its apparent disregard for heirarchy and leaders and the high value it places on self worth.

I wonder, since property is derived from work, according to the flash presentation, is inheritance against the libertarian ideal?

eple · 10-23-2003, 04:47 AM

hmmm...this seems interesting. The Right-winger's call for small governemtn have bred a generation of citizens with an irrational fear of govermental infrastructure and reliabillity. Here in Norway, we have the world's greatest standards of livinf. Schools, health-care, social security, public transportation and many other benefits are granted by our govenment, who gets reasonable taxes in return. Too bad so many stupid right-wingers here are trying to adopt american paradigms. So far they have privatized most of our energy-market, tripling the prizes and creating several severe crisis in just the last 10 years....

Food Eater Lad · 10-23-2003, 11:58 AM

And what other than Vikings and cheese has Norway contributed to the world? I guess the government taking care of each Norwegien has muted that "individual spirit" that crazy Right wingers would like to foster in Americans. The rugged personal responciblity that let America succeed for two hundred years, and dare i say it, surpase all other nations as far as world contributions, military, and economic powers?
Would I tade the American working spirit and comitment to indivual freedom that allows them to succeed or fail on their own merits and create a society that dominates the world for a semi socialised system that strips people, and coddles them and leaves them in just another mediocre nation? Nope. Work hard, succeed, take care of your self and family. You and your family are YOUR responciblity, not anyone elses. This is something the left wingers have forgotton.

eple · 10-23-2003, 12:32 PM

....Well I never said that we Norwegians are a superior speices (I thinkt that is reserved for people like you). And by all means, Norway is a small country whith little impact on the world. I just believe we have had, and still have, a very good system, with good services from the government and all the freedom we want. The fact that we don't acheive a lot, might be linked to the fact that we have ca. 4 million citizens, and only 100 years of history as an independent nation. Not much time to establish a great culture. I don't really see how all that anger was called for. Yes, the US have given us great achievements in recent history. I do belive this is possible in the future as well, but maybe combined with a more just society with less poverty and diversity.

smooth · 10-23-2003, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
And what other than Vikings and cheese has Norway contributed to the world?

Beautiful women!

Why is it that leftist societies have the hottest women?

(California, Norway, Sweden, Cuba, China, any given spot in South America...)

eple · 10-23-2003, 01:15 PM

I was refering to Norway as a country which at least used to have a relatively fair society, with full freedom for all (We are NOT communists, we are, or used to be, a social democracy. There is a difference.) I think the government can take good care of many services. I also note that every sector which have been privatized in this country, have fucked up. Energy got expensive and unreliable, the railway became a joke, telephone companies ripping people off etc etc. It's simple facts. Norway certainly haven't blossomed from the privatization. and I do belive that a greater govermental impact might create a better society for all.

Individuals are nice, but we have a society we wish to protect too. Individual freedom doesen't go away even though your governent provide you with healthcare, education, power and other neccecities. I won't endorse individual freedom at everyone elses expense. There are losers in every society, in fact, most of us will not be on top. Why should the freedom of the little percentage of big fish go before that of the vast majority? Call me a socialist if you wish ( am a reformist social democrat), I bear it with pride. I want a fair and equal society, not a country for ego-trips with money..

Food Eater Lad · 10-23-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Beautiful women!

Why is it that leftist societies have the hottest women?

(California, Norway, Sweden, Cuba, China, any given spot in South America...)

And you are leaving out the hottest capitalist Japanese babes?

10-19-2003, 06:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
Nomad Heathen Location: California	Philosophy Of Liberty <A href="http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf">Philosophy Of Liberty</A> This Flash Presentation Is from ... The International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL). http://www.isil.org/

10-19-2003, 08:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Thank you Communism!!!! __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-19-2003, 09:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I was just merely pointing out how Capitalism kicked Communism's ass in the last half century due to the lack of (or a lesser role) of Government being involved. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-20-2003, 06:33 AM	#13 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	First off, Enron is one power company. One corrupt power company. To suggest that because of one company that privatization is a failure, is ridiculous. Wherever you have positions of power (no pun intended), there will be corruption. The only difference between corrupt private companies and corrupt government agencies, is that private companies are eventually caught and held accountable (as much as rich white men can be held accountable in our legal system ). A government agency is held much less accountable by the people, as there really is very little way for them to exercise power over it. If AT&T suddenly is revealed to be a corrupt bunch of hooligans, consumers can switch their local phone service to another provider. Hopefully, eventually, there will be several options for each consumer for any utility. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-20-2003, 10:04 PM	#25 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Actually I need to side to some degree with those who think it should be nationally owned. There DOES need to be some oversite for services, which is lost, would cripple or even destroy the nation. Power is one of those things, which if we don't have, we become our great grandparents again very quickly in terms of abilities (only without their knowlage of living without power). As such 100% private controlled is bad. There needs to be SOME regulation such that no one can turn off the lights on a whim, or due to poor management. Just like its illegal for air traffic controllers to strike, you need SOME sort of assurance that everying will keep working. Now where I would differ is the extent of government control. I'm much happier with government oversite of a private company, then a government owned one. A private company as a rule will work harder, if you don't believe me, work in government a bit, and will see benifits of making the public happy with their service for the most part. Ok its late, and I can hardly see so this will have to do, typos and all __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-19-2003, 08:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	I couldn't make it more than 30 seconds into that. It seemed like a paragraph of text stretched into a flash presentation with graphics that didn't really add anything to the text. Personally, I like a lot of aspects of libertarianism, but I do think there is a place for heavy government regulation. For example, as we have seen, power privatization has been a colossal failure in the USA, mostly due to the misguided idea that a "free market" can reign in an industry where a new power plant can take at least 10 years to build. It's this slavish dedication to the free market above all else that turns me off about libertarianism, otherwise I would probably call myself one.

10-20-2003, 07:08 PM	#15 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Where in the constitution does it say that the government's job is to provide power? I thought the only three things the government was to do was provide a system to solve arguments ( courts), provide for the peace ( police) and provide for the defence? Harmless are you saying that the constitution provides the means for the government to cook your steak?

10-20-2003, 08:24 PM	#19 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I would say that the federal bailouts and interference in Airlines is causing big problems with that industry. Also, government licenses is covered by the court and dispute part of the government.

10-20-2003, 08:59 PM	#21 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	So you think the we will benifit from government controled services? What about bread? Or shoes? Whats to stop them from using the 10th admendment to justify socialism? I think you are over using this ademdment. I mean the founding fathers were clear cut capitalists and fought against England for daring to use government regulation to control things such as tea.

10-20-2003, 09:28 PM	#23 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	So Three Mile Island is then proof of government control is great?

10-20-2003, 09:30 PM	#24 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Misunderstanding of the constitution? I am stating that the writers of the constituion fought, some personally, against government control of the free market. You are overstating the 10th admentment as a catch all for socialism.

10-20-2003, 10:37 PM	#26 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I am all for goverment watching over a privatly run power company. But a government controlled power industry? Gheese talk about a nightmare.

10-21-2003, 11:10 AM	#32 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Figured you wouldnt put your money were your mouth is.

10-21-2003, 11:20 AM	#33 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	-edited. not worth getting another warning over. Last edited by Darkblack; 10-21-2003 at 11:33 AM..

10-22-2003, 07:45 PM	#34 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Lib. seems like an interesting idea, but i fail to see how it could be implemented, and how it could be implemented with safeguards to keep it from devovling into a system of monetary might makes right. It seems similar to anarchy in its apparent disregard for heirarchy and leaders and the high value it places on self worth. I wonder, since property is derived from work, according to the flash presentation, is inheritance against the libertarian ideal?

10-23-2003, 04:47 AM	#35 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	hmmm...this seems interesting. The Right-winger's call for small governemtn have bred a generation of citizens with an irrational fear of govermental infrastructure and reliabillity. Here in Norway, we have the world's greatest standards of livinf. Schools, health-care, social security, public transportation and many other benefits are granted by our govenment, who gets reasonable taxes in return. Too bad so many stupid right-wingers here are trying to adopt american paradigms. So far they have privatized most of our energy-market, tripling the prizes and creating several severe crisis in just the last 10 years....

10-23-2003, 11:58 AM	#36 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	And what other than Vikings and cheese has Norway contributed to the world? I guess the government taking care of each Norwegien has muted that "individual spirit" that crazy Right wingers would like to foster in Americans. The rugged personal responciblity that let America succeed for two hundred years, and dare i say it, surpase all other nations as far as world contributions, military, and economic powers? Would I tade the American working spirit and comitment to indivual freedom that allows them to succeed or fail on their own merits and create a society that dominates the world for a semi socialised system that strips people, and coddles them and leaves them in just another mediocre nation? Nope. Work hard, succeed, take care of your self and family. You and your family are YOUR responciblity, not anyone elses. This is something the left wingers have forgotton.

10-23-2003, 12:32 PM	#37 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	....Well I never said that we Norwegians are a superior speices (I thinkt that is reserved for people like you). And by all means, Norway is a small country whith little impact on the world. I just believe we have had, and still have, a very good system, with good services from the government and all the freedom we want. The fact that we don't acheive a lot, might be linked to the fact that we have ca. 4 million citizens, and only 100 years of history as an independent nation. Not much time to establish a great culture. I don't really see how all that anger was called for. Yes, the US have given us great achievements in recent history. I do belive this is possible in the future as well, but maybe combined with a more just society with less poverty and diversity.

10-23-2003, 01:15 PM	#39 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	I was refering to Norway as a country which at least used to have a relatively fair society, with full freedom for all (We are NOT communists, we are, or used to be, a social democracy. There is a difference.) I think the government can take good care of many services. I also note that every sector which have been privatized in this country, have fucked up. Energy got expensive and unreliable, the railway became a joke, telephone companies ripping people off etc etc. It's simple facts. Norway certainly haven't blossomed from the privatization. and I do belive that a greater govermental impact might create a better society for all. Individuals are nice, but we have a society we wish to protect too. Individual freedom doesen't go away even though your governent provide you with healthcare, education, power and other neccecities. I won't endorse individual freedom at everyone elses expense. There are losers in every society, in fact, most of us will not be on top. Why should the freedom of the little percentage of big fish go before that of the vast majority? Call me a socialist if you wish ( am a reformist social democrat), I bear it with pride. I want a fair and equal society, not a country for ego-trips with money..