[GandalfTheGrey]

Water, telephone and electricity are essential services that are required in all modern households in the west. These utilities used to be publicly owned, meaning we didn't have to pay for them. Now that they have become privatised almost everywhere, people must pay to have water, electricity and the phone in their house. This, surely is an anathema for liberalists, and so are liberalists in favour of these services being publicly owned, and therefore free?

[liberalist]

Water, the telephone and electricity were NEVER free. Have you ever heard of the expression "there's no such thing as a free lunch"? When these services were owned by the government, we paid for them via our taxes.

One of the problems with this was that the government had a monopoly over the service, thus there was no competition and the cost to deliver the service was kept high. Note: I said the cost to deliver the service, NOT the cost to the consumer.
Further, under public ownership everybody paid the same amount for these services (ie. it came out of the tax everybody pays). Thus, people who used less electricity were actually paying for those people who used a lot of electricity. Under privatisation, costs are better passed on to the consumer and people who use more pay more. Much fairer.

(Note: I have more to write on this, but am too damn tired to do so now.)

[GandalfTheGrey]

Water, the telephone and electricity were NEVER free. Have you ever heard of the expression "there's no such thing as a free lunch"? When these services were owned by the government, we paid for them via our taxes.

yes yes, I am aware of that. But in real terms it is a lot different - taxes never hurt you financially, but if you get a whopping big ultility bill, then it may very well be dificult to pay. That is why I said it was "free", though technically of course it wasn't.

Further, under public ownership everybody paid the same amount for these services (ie. it came out of the tax everybody pays). Thus, people who used less electricity were actually paying for those people who used a lot of electricity. Under privatisation, costs are better passed on to the consumer and people who use more pay more. Much fairer.

This is my point about civil liberties. Since I believe these services are essential services, then surely every household has a right to have them. Under the user-pay system, people might get a bill that they are unable to pay for, in which case the service may be cut off. Of course, they are paying more because they used more, but the point is, if they can't afford it and it is cut off, then this deprives them of the right to essential services. Can you say - yes you have the right to these services, but only if you can afford it?

[smashthestate]

These utilities used to be publicly owned, meaning we didn't have to pay for them.

Well there's your first error. Nothing is free, we have to pay for everything where labor is involved. We did pay for those utilities in the form of taxes. Government employees didn't build and maintain them out of the kindness of their hearts.

But in real terms it is a lot different - taxes never hurt you financially, but if you get a whopping big ultility bill, then it may very well be dificult to pay.

Oh how I wish that were true. Taxes are the number one reason why investing is hindered. Investing is probably the single most important thing to growing businesses and companies. When people are too highly taxed, they are far less likely to take their extra money and risk it to investing. This is a serious problem for the economy.

This, surely is an anathema for liberalists, and so are liberalists in favour of these services being publicly owned, and therefore free?

I can't speak for all liberals, but classical liberals (a.k.a. Libertarians) believe that all utilities should be privately owned. However, today the government grants each company a regional monopoly. They basically say no one else can compete with that company in that region, it is illegal. This, in our view, should be done away with.

if they can't afford it and it is cut off, then this deprives them of the right to essential services.

Just because something is widely used does not mean it is suddenly a right. Utilities is a privilage, whether they are publicly owned or privately owned. No one is born with the right to enjoy electricity or water lines. These are privilages.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Well there's your first error. Nothing is free, we have to pay for everything where labor is involved. We did pay for those utilities in the form of taxes. Government employees didn't build and maintain them out of the kindness of their hearts.

I have already explained what I mean by this in my first response.

Oh how I wish that were true. Taxes are the number one reason why investing is hindered. Investing is probably the single most important thing to growing businesses and companies. When people are too highly taxed, they are far less likely to take their extra money and risk it to investing. This is a serious problem for the economy.

I have no idea how this relates to the topic.

I can't speak for all liberals, but classical liberals (a.k.a. Libertarians) believe that all utilities should be privately owned. However, today the government grants each company a regional monopoly. They basically say no one else can compete with that company in that region, it is illegal. This, in our view, should be done away with.

And this is the exact problem I have with privately owned utilities: monopolies. Even if they are to be privately owned, I believe there should be some government regulations to ensure customers are not unfairly exploited - which I believe will always happen when there is no government regulation (just look at Microsoft). So I think its deplorable if ever there was a situation where the water company is charging more than some people can afford.

just because something is widely used does not mean it is suddenly a right. Utilities is a privilage, whether they are publicly owned or privately owned. No one is born with the right to enjoy electricity or water lines. These are privilages.

Perhaps, but I have heard that if you are unable to pay your electricity or water bill, the companies are not necessarily allowed to cut them off because it infringes upon certain basic human rights. Also these companies are VERY open to negotiations, whereby you can, for instance, arrange to pay in installments, when you are meant to pay up front. This is for the same reason. I would have thought that in this day and age, in an affluent society a case COULD be made for arguing that everyone has a right to these most basic services.

[smashthestate]

I have no idea how this relates to the topic.

Maybe not. But it was in response to you saying that taxes never hurt anyone financially, which is a huge false statement. Not uncommon, though, because most people aren't familiar with how taxation and investing are related; and futhermore, they aren't normally familiar with how investing and healthy economies are related.

And this is the exact problem I have with privately owned utilities: monopolies. Even if they are to be privately owned, I believe there should be some government regulations to ensure customers are not unfairly exploited

This is the case in the U.S.A., so I guess you would probably like our system.

(just look at Microsoft)

I grow so tired of hearing this. Microsoft is not and was not a monopoly. A monopoly is where one company has complete control of the production of one commodity. Controlling the majority of the market does not constitute a monopoly. This is not the case for Microsoft. There are hundreds of other operating system companies, and at least four to five big ones.

Secondly, Microsoft was, in no way, shape, or form, unfairly exploiting the consumer. The Windows operating system has cost almost exactly as much as its top competitors, such as Mac OS. In fact, you can purchase both Windows XP Home Edition and Macintosh OS X for the exact same price.

Microsoft was never a monopoly, and even as the leader in the operating system market, they never became "harmful" and tried to unfairly exploit the consumer, since their competitors were charging the same price for products.

Perhaps, but I have heard that if you are unable to pay your electricity or water bill, the companies are not necessarily allowed to cut them off because it infringes upon certain basic human rights.

I don't know where you heard that, but where I live this is not the case. As with any service, if you don't pay for it, you don't get to enjoy it.

I would have thought that in this day and age, in an affluent society a case COULD be made for arguing that everyone has a right to these most basic services.

Just because most people enjoy these conveniences, does not mean that they all of a sudden become basic human rights. The idea of that is simply laughable. Even the UN Charter doesn't mention electricity, city water, or propane utilities as basic human rights.

These things are privilages, not rights.

If we went by this reasoning, vehicles should also become basic human rights, and televisions, and washing machines. But again, these are not rights, but privilages.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I grow so tired of hearing this. Microsoft is not and was not a monopoly. A monopoly is where one company has complete control of the production of one commodity. Controlling the majority of the market does not constitute a monopoly. This is not the case for Microsoft. There are hundreds of other operating system companies, and at least four to five big ones.

Not quite on topic, but I can't leave this unchallenged:
Yes, there are other operating systems, but these are in niche markets. We are talking about computers regular people buy for personal use. Sun operating systems, or Unix are not competing with Windows in this market (though they may be competing in other markets). How can you say they don't have a monopoly? You buy a new computer, and it has Windows already installed. Where are Microsoft's competitors in the PC market? How much software is there available for PC use that is not Windows dependant? There is no opportunity for the consumer to choose anyone else. The only people who can are the ones that are sufficiently computer literate to be able to find their own operating system, and install it themselves (which is not easy from a formatted hard drive).

Secondly, Microsoft was, in no way, shape, or form, unfairly exploiting the consumer. The Windows operating system has cost almost exactly as much as its top competitors, such as Mac OS. In fact, you can purchase both Windows XP Home Edition and Macintosh OS X for the exact same price.

For one thing, Macintosh is over 50% owned by Microsoft, so its hardly a competitor. Of course Microsoft unfairly exploits the consumers; by giving them no choice but to run Windows on their computers.

Just because most people enjoy these conveniences, does not mean that they all of a sudden become basic human rights. The idea of that is simply laughable. Even the UN Charter doesn't mention electricity, city water, or propane utilities as basic human rights.

What you are saying is that people don't have a right to water. If you live in a city, then you have to be connected to the water mains to have water. Then, in order for this water to run, you need electricity. So of course its a basic human right. I'm surprised to hear a civil libertarian arguing that having water is not a basic human right. It is not a privilege, because if you don't have it, you die.