Privatized versus Government Run

I see that the city of Anderson is dropping the private company they hired to do their busing. I also remembered that the company Mitch Daniels contracted with to run the northern Indiana tolls is going bankrupt.

Here was my thought. There are certain things that are very suited to privatization. These are things that involve competition. To speak in terms of ethical theory, these are utilitarian areas where the needs of the many are the name of the game.

But of course, not everything is utilitarian. There are areas where, again, turning to ethical theory, matters are deontological or a matter of duty. These are areas where what we call basic human rights are involved or (as I would rather put it) basic elements of our common social contract are at stake. These are areas like education, police, and some would argue basic health services. These are areas where there are key standards that trump competition.

My thought was, upon reading of the Anderson fiasco, that only utilitarian matters are best suited for privatization. Areas of basic rights are more appropriately administrated by the government, with accountability and transparency, of course.

A thought for a Friday afternoon...

concluding paragraphs to social contract

OK, here are the two concluding paragraphs to my section on social contracts.
_____________
Nevertheless, the idea of society involving a kind of social contract between its members arguably remains a helpful way of conceptualizing the tension between individual freedom and the corporate benefits of a society as a whole.  Both biblically and historically, Christians believe that all human beings are loved by God and are thus significant and valuable.  And even from a secular standpoint, societies that consider all individuals within them to be meaningful members of their social contracts seem to prosper far more than those that repress or ignore some group or portion.  Historically, these ignored groups have a tendency to revolt and exact their revenge on those who ignore them, often subjugating the others in turn.

We remember that this same era of European history also produced utilitarianism, the idea that governments should strive to enact what brings about the greatest good for the greatest number.  In the light of social contract theory, we can modify this proposal to say that the people of a nation would ideally set down a relatively limited number of common rules with the goal of bringing about the greatest good for the greatest number without unduly sacrificing the freedom of other individuals within the contract.  How these basic principles play out varies significantly within those governments that practice this sort of social contract (e.g., will it include universal health care?).  But some variation on this form of government has become the ideal standard worldwide today, the “constitutional democracy.”

America's social contract

I'm wondering if I should shift from writing so much here more to summarizing what I'm writing.  I've wondered if there is little interest in wading through my prose.  What do you think?

I've been writing a section in the philosophy book on "Social Contracts."  Here are a couple highlights:

1. I've long heard the name Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) but haven't known a lot about him.  I like this guy.  He took the side of the Arminians against the hard core Calvinists of Holland and lost.  He was imprisoned for life in 1618, but his wife and a maidservant smuggled him out in 1621 in a chest.

He went on to write some of the foundations of international law.  For example, it was he who first argued that the seas were international territory (he wrote this back in Holland before his imprisonment).

2. I have long thought that the best way to get to the bottom of what America should be in relation to many issues is the idea of a social contract.  This of course was the basis for American democracy in the first place, as the founders had the rare opportunity of creating a government from scratch.  Here are some ground rules:

• One surrenders some degree of individual freedom when one lives together with others in society.  If you cannot remove yourself from a society, then you are bound to abide by its contract.
• The default state of a member of a society is equal to that of all others.  
• We agree to live by certain ground rules, a "bill of rights," if you would.  I won't steal your property if you don't steal mine.  I won't kill you if you don't kill me.  Etc.
• We set up a third party, the government, to arbitrate disputes and protect our individual rights.  Contract violators (criminals) are either removed from society or rehabilitated to follow the contract.
• What we have the government do for us depends on the kind of contract we arrange.  The only stipulations are that no arrangement can violate my basic rights as an individual.  If we want to pay taxes so that the government provides universal health care, we can.  If we do not, we don't have to.
• I as an individual have to abide by those parts of the contract with which I do not personally agree, provided that the contract does not impinge on my basic rights. 
• It is in the best interest of a society as a whole for its contract to benefit as many of its members as possible, present and future.  Some structures may not benefit me now, but might benefit me at another time.

To me, this framework of thinking cuts through a lot of mud.