Something I hadn’t thought of was safety issues (besides the poisoning). It would be worth noting that many in the US do depend on private business for their drinking water (bottled water). I have wondered for years if it was the plan of the gov. to make tap water vile, as least in taste and/or smell. How much does the gov. make on bottled water (taxes, etc) each year while complaining about the waste?

Most people in the country feel that gov. has a proper role in utilities and can’t believe that private business could handle it. That will be the same with Obamacare about 5 years after it is fully in place.

American liberals are uninterested in curtailing private enterprise

What America are you talking about? Can we trade Americas?

Thus, this gem pertains only to Communists. I know of none. I know many libertarians.

I agree that private industry can perform almost any function more efficiently than government. Efficiency is not the only concern however. Obviously cost to the consumer is always an issue but in the utility delivery businesses (esp. water, power, and natural gas) there are the equally important issues of safety and continuity. It is not difficult to find examples where for profit companies include calculated risks as policy or even accept fines as a cost of doing business. This returns me to the thinking that governmental oversight is a proper role for government in the utility delivery business.

As to Arnold and California . . well, his record should speak for itself, we are in a terrible financial mess and, not to say that it’s all his fault but, it has happened under his governorship. The power problems did happen under Gray Davis, that is true, but I believe the responsibility for the same can be better traced to the spirit of deregulation which grew out of the Reagan era. Again I return to the thought that government has a proper role in this area.

Read more: Samizdat: The Libertarian Alarm Clock — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/12311/samizdat-the-libertarian-alarm-clock/#ixzz0jO4fS4Sq

My experience with electric power is limited and I can’t remember ever having been served by municipal power, only regulated private companies about who I have no complaint. I do remember that the Los Angeles Municipal Water and Power avoided the crisis caused by deregulation in the late 1990′s primarily because of the foresight of then General Manager S. David Freeman.

As to sewer, I have lived with both septic and city sewer. While I prefer being on a city sewer I have never compared the two from a cost perspective so really can’t comment about that. If a private company were to take my sewage I suspect they would charge me about the same way the city does, water in/water out as you say, and it seems to me as a profit driven concern they would have more incentive to overcharge me than a city or municipality. Probably, private could do the job more efficiently and so maybe could charge less, but would they, especially if unregulated. Accuracy aside, it seems to me the water method is a reasonably fair way to charge for sewage.

That’s my take, trash I agree is better private, power and gas private but regulated, and sewer public or possibly regulated private. Again, this is one of the few areas of life where I think government serves a proper role in my life.

It is unclear to me what you mean when you say ” . . war for oil is a realistic idea . . “. What I am saying is that I am taxed and this taxation is used to wage wars which, in Kuwait and Iraq at least, is about maintaining the flow of oil from that region to the United States and therefore the cost of these wars should be properly accounted for in the cost of gas. I agree with you that it would be cheaper to just purchase the oil and I like that idea. I accept that war is sometimes necessary but I do not put war to maintain the flow of oil in that category. Unlike public utilities I think that the private sector could do a much better job of keeping me mobil in the manner to which I have become accustomed (whether using oil or some other means) than can the government. Additionally, I think this government intervention (war for oil) has precluded private industry from engaging in developing alternative fuel sources or transportation means.

What I mean by aid is Foreign Aid which is related to keeping the flow of oil from a particular region to the United States. Again, I do not consider this a prudent use of my tax dollars.

Perhaps you know more about “Property theory” than do I but when I bought a piece of land I was told that my deed entitled me to all rights including what lies beneath as well as a certain quantity of the sky above. Also, where I live in California the oil companies whose wells were some miles away payed royalties for many years to homeowners in the area so I suspect there was an issue of homeowners “being entitled to the benefits of the resource (above which we live)”.

I understand the United States Homestead Act whereby persons gained ownership of property by virtue of “(adding) something which increase(d) the value” but I am not sure that this idea applies if one purchases a property.

Thanks for your thoughts, would love to continue the conversation . .geopark

Are you suggesting, like many do, that war for oil is a realistic idea and that war costs should be associated with the gas? War is so expensive that it would be cheaper to just purchase the oil. I have enough confidence in the government to hope that they would go to war for oil… Political gain and/or believing there is a security threat seems much more likely. But then again, government can’t calculate.

Also aid… are you saying when oil companies drill for oil in poor areas that the aid necessary to keep those people alive should be associated with the oil? Living next to or above something valuable doesn’t mean you’re entitled to the benefits of the resource. Property theory says that in order to gain ownership of something you must add something which increases the value called homesteading. The people that live in those areas have not homesteaded the reserves beneath there feet, as of such they are not entitled to any of the benefits. If they have, then benefits should be given.

Vitriol is so rampant the mainstream, I would hope that Freethinkers, Independents, and Libertarians would hold themselves to a higher standard.

Did you also know that Coca-Cola was a socialist drink?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt_RSqgGaFQ