Hi

Akria · 30-09-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

In response to my question:

"How can a private company act in the interests of the people of Britain(who they do not represent) when things (like privatised water utilities and healthcare) are run on a "for profit" and not a public service basis ?"

You said:

Firstly, this shows you are totally in denial of the nature of private business whose primary aim is to make a profit, not to represent the interests of people.

You are very, very good at misunderstanding people, aren't you?
Read what I said again carefully. Absorb it. Analyse it. Note the key words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

How exactly will this private company be made accountable when they are not acting in the public interest ?

If they are not acting in the public interest, if they are not accountable, then I would not support them in their job.
You can bring about as many ifs and hows of your own as you want, but none of them are relevant as I specifically stated one major if.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

You constant reference to "if they do a better job" is living in a dreamworld, sounds like a typical answer you would expect from a politician like Tony Blair, and by all accounts is impractical to measure let alone execute successfully.

I repeat my above points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Ironically you say "Therefore unaccountable organisations are excluded.".

Well you've proved my point - as they are not elected they are totally unaccountable, so your argument is totally wrong.

Accountability does not necessitate election, merely ability to be chastised and/or removed.
And as shown by the English Civil War, one does not need to be defeated in an election to be removed.

Your points so far say nothing about my argument, merely about the way in which you ignored the major if.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Don't understand your point here at all. Obviously I am against any fascist state, but I laugh at how opposing global warming means supporting global warming - ironically it's the opposite, my entire point.

Right, let's put it this way.

I am in favour of combatting global warming.
You are in favour of overthrowing a fascist government.

I am in favour of combatting global warming by sensible and non-restricting means (nuclear power etc.).
You are in favour of replacing fascism with a liberal state.

But you claimed that as I am in favour of combatting global warming I support measures which will restrict liberty and/or are not sensible.
By the same argument you are in favour of overthrowing fascism and replacing it with something else that is bad.

See where the logical flaw occurs?
Merely supporting the idea that a problem should be solved does not necessitate support for all solutions to that problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Some "libertarians" may think this due to excessive state interference, but I believe the state (if genuine and not acting in self interest) still has a role to play.

As do I.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Dear me Akria, have you lost the plot ?

If you believe libertarian means "doing what you want" then you have totally missed the point or are trying to spin propaganda against those who agree with liberty.

I did state that this is from my personal experience debating self-declared libertarians. I do not pretend that they speak for all libertarians or that they reflect upon the ideology itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

For example, how can a rapist be exercising liberty when he is taking the liberty of his victim away ?

Exactly my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

What you're talking about is anarchy where anything goes and there are no laws, not libertarianism.

I agree, but see my earlier point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

If you meet a "libertarian" who claims not to support a system of law then they are anarchists and not libertarians.

I agree. But I did mention that they are self-declared libertarians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Your argument is complete rubbish.

No, you are merely very bad at reading my arguments.
Try not to skip the key words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

But there is a difference between saying that government can pass laws which the majority agree with(like rape , murder etc) and those which they vehemently don't (e.g. Brussels treaty, Iraq war, surveillence, detantion without trial, etc etc so many....)

Even when America was a free country under the founding fathers they still had laws, but they were made for the benefit of the people, not the state itself to suppress the people.

That is the point, and what you are missing.

I suggest you are far too tied up with your innacurate defintions to fully comprehend the real world, how it should be formed and for who.....

Once again, entirely founded on a false reading of my arguments.

youcanhandlethetruth · 01-10-2008, 04:21 AM

Ok let's review the thread again ok ?

YCHTT: "Given your stance, no doubt you're in favour of allowing Britain to have it's institutions controlled by outside proxy corporations ? (which it ironically already is by the EU)
It fits nicely into your global warming/anti nationalist stance.

Akria: In favour? Not particularly.
OK with? If they do a better job then yes.

I don't want institutions controlled by those other than Britain as a matter of course.
I just want whoever does the best job to control them; if this is the British then fine, if it's another nation or supranational organisation then likewise fine. They just have to be the best.

YCHTT: "How can a private company act in the interests of the people of Britain(who they do not represent) when things (like privatised water utilities and healthcare) are run on a "for profit" and not a public service basis ?"

Akria:

I said 'if they do a better job'. Given that the job in question is acting in the interests of the people, anyone who does not do so will not be doing that 'better job', and thus are excluded from consideration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you mean "Given that the job in question is acting in the interests of the people" ?

That's my whole point - by definition of it being "private" and not "public" it isn't.

I asked "How can a private company act in the interests of the people..... " and you reply with ""Given that the job in question is acting in the interests of the people, then anyone who isn't doing a better job..... is excluded" !

So now you are saying "if they do a better job" can only be measured and only applies if they are "acting in the interests of people" ?

But I specifically asked you about private institutions.
Are these excluded in your answer "I want the best....." ?

Ok let me put the same question another way......

Is a job in a private company acting "acting in the interests of the people" or not ?

And no spin or rubbish about whether they're "doing a better job" or not please........

Akria · 02-10-2008, 09:09 PM

YCHTT:

I have had enough of this debate.

You have done little but misread, misunderstand and misrepresent my arguments, each in turn, time after time.
You have repeatedly tried to make me defend a point I was not making - I am sorry, but I will not play your stupid little game any more.
You tell me not to use 'spin' or 'rubbish' about doing a better job, but the idea that only those who do the best should control the institutions is the very crux of my argument; it is neither spin nor rubbish but the ultimate and defining rule!

I will summarise my argument in the hopes that you will finally get it into your thick skull and stop trying to spin this debate.

I DON'T CARE WHO RUNS WHATEVER INSTITUTION YOU CAN COME UP WITH, AS LONG AS THEY DO THE BEST JOB.
BEST BEING DEFINED AS MAINTAINING ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACHIEVING WHATEVER THE INSTITUTION WAS SET UP TO ACHIEVE IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER.

The debate ends now as a consequence of your constant strawman attacks.
I will not reply to any further posts you make in this thread.

youcanhandlethetruth · 03-10-2008, 01:58 AM

I asked you a simple question:

"Is a job in a private company acting "acting in the interests of the people" or not ?"

and you can not answer it.

So you throw your toys out the pram and accuse me of "misrepresenting your argument".

You've been outdebated into a corner and now you don't like it.

Let me tell give you the simple answer......

In a privately owned institution "ACHIEVING WHATEVER THE INSTITUTION WAS SET UP TO ACHIEVE IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER." means making money and not being accountable to the public i.e. not "acting in the public's interest", hence the term "private".

You simply don't know what on earth you're talking about.

01-10-2008, 04:21 AM	#12 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,378	Ok let's review the thread again ok ? YCHTT: "Given your stance, no doubt you're in favour of allowing Britain to have it's institutions controlled by outside proxy corporations ? (which it ironically already is by the EU) It fits nicely into your global warming/anti nationalist stance. Akria: In favour? Not particularly. OK with? If they do a better job then yes. I don't want institutions controlled by those other than Britain as a matter of course. I just want whoever does the best job to control them; if this is the British then fine, if it's another nation or supranational organisation then likewise fine. They just have to be the best. YCHTT: "How can a private company act in the interests of the people of Britain(who they do not represent) when things (like privatised water utilities and healthcare) are run on a "for profit" and not a public service basis ?" Akria: I said 'if they do a better job'. Given that the job in question is acting in the interests of the people, anyone who does not do so will not be doing that 'better job', and thus are excluded from consideration. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you mean "Given that the job in question is acting in the interests of the people" ? That's my whole point - by definition of it being "private" and not "public" it isn't. I asked "How can a private company act in the interests of the people..... " and you reply with ""Given that the job in question is acting in the interests of the people, then anyone who isn't doing a better job..... is excluded" ! So now you are saying "if they do a better job" can only be measured and only applies if they are "acting in the interests of people" ? But I specifically asked you about private institutions. Are these excluded in your answer "I want the best....." ? Ok let me put the same question another way...... Is a job in a private company acting "acting in the interests of the people" or not ? And no spin or rubbish about whether they're "doing a better job" or not please........ __________________ Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed. cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

02-10-2008, 09:09 PM	#13 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,477 Party: None	YCHTT: I have had enough of this debate. You have done little but misread, misunderstand and misrepresent my arguments, each in turn, time after time. You have repeatedly tried to make me defend a point I was not making - I am sorry, but I will not play your stupid little game any more. You tell me not to use 'spin' or 'rubbish' about doing a better job, but the idea that only those who do the best should control the institutions is the very crux of my argument; it is neither spin nor rubbish but the ultimate and defining rule! I will summarise my argument in the hopes that you will finally get it into your thick skull and stop trying to spin this debate. I DON'T CARE WHO RUNS WHATEVER INSTITUTION YOU CAN COME UP WITH, AS LONG AS THEY DO THE BEST JOB. BEST BEING DEFINED AS MAINTAINING ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACHIEVING WHATEVER THE INSTITUTION WAS SET UP TO ACHIEVE IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER. The debate ends now as a consequence of your constant strawman attacks. I will not reply to any further posts you make in this thread. __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

03-10-2008, 01:58 AM	#14 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,378	I asked you a simple question: "Is a job in a private company acting "acting in the interests of the people" or not ?" and you can not answer it. So you throw your toys out the pram and accuse me of "misrepresenting your argument". You've been outdebated into a corner and now you don't like it. Let me tell give you the simple answer...... In a privately owned institution "ACHIEVING WHATEVER THE INSTITUTION WAS SET UP TO ACHIEVE IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER." means making money and not being accountable to the public i.e. not "acting in the public's interest", hence the term "private". You simply don't know what on earth you're talking about. __________________ Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed. cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK Last edited by youcanhandlethetruth; 03-10-2008 at 02:09 AM. Reason: typo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode