Privatized government?
I think sociocracy could be a political form of governance. At the sociocracy center in the Netherlands they’ve talked about it and done scenarios and gameplay about it. I haven’t really studied much about that aspect, but plan to at some point.
I’ve had the idea that with sociocracy, we could have all private institutions take over the functions of government. It’s hard to picture because we’re so used to the corruption that comes with capitalism - as much wealth as possible is drained away as profit. In a sociocratic business, the aim would be a real goal: prevent house fires, or keep people well. We would probably become members rather than buy products, a bit like we pay insurance to be a member of the people covered by that insurance. The fire departments would insure houses, make sure building codes were geared towards fireproofness, inspect people’s houses and provide alarms, etc., and pay out when they couldn’t put out a fire. If they paid decent wages, but didn’t take profits, it would be affordable. Departments would be linked in decision-making all the way up to a global level. Or healthcare: the insurance providers now are incentivized to reject claims - people pay, but don’t receive coverage. Instead of the (huge) insurance profits being drained off into owners’ bank accounts, there would be more money to cover people’s needs.
Obviously I can’t know how this will really work. I’ve been calling this ‘profits vs. aim.’
September 10th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
You’re chasing a red herring by thinking profits are evil. The
corruption that hurts Capitalism, the damage which used to be called
“Mercantilism” and is now called the “(whatever)-industrial complex”,
is when a Government gives a privileged legal position to favored
companies or groups: for instance, the US Postal Service. Government
has given a monopoly on delivering letters to the USPS. It is
*illegal* to compete with the postal service. Does that make any
sense? Would anyone be injured if some average guy just up and put an
ad in the paper offering to deliver letters for a fee? What if
Federal Express, UPS, Purolator, Yellow Freight, and Western Union got
in a six-way competition with the post office to see who could deliver
letters in a manner most pleasing to the consumer? Are more options a
bad thing? If it isn’t, then why is it *illegal*? What if Wal-Mart
offered walk-in emergency medical care like they do for eyeglasses?
Would medical care for “Always Low Prices, Always” be a bad thing?
At one time in America, firefighters were privately funded by
insurance companies, and inexpensive medical co-ops were arranged by
local lodges (Elks, Moose, etc.) and unions. These arrangements are
now illegal, either explicitly or by legal harassment. You can thank
the AMA for having the lodge medical co-ops banned, they did it in
order to raise their member doctors’ salaries. They were entirely
candid about this goal in the early AMA recruiting literature.
If profits in a line of business are unusually high, competition takes
them away — unless the competition is banned. Pot was actually
banned because it is much cheaper to make paper products from hemp
than from wood pulp. Well, the tree farmers talked to their senator,
and ever since then paper has been more expensive than it need be.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I agree with Abolitionist that there is an important role for profits - particularly as a measurement of how well you are doing. E.g., if your organization doesn’t take in more than it spends, it will eventually disappear.
However, i dont think profits was the main part of Ted’s message. The really new part of the message is the idea that current incentives are all structured for corruption and inefficiency. The police need criminal to keep their budget, etc.