James Shaw ¦ Contributing Writer
Workers of the USA’s federal government have been on strike for over a week. Congress has been seen to have been making an active effort to resolve the dispute, and as a result, the country has not shut down completely. What would happen if such a strike were to occur in Ireland? The result would be much more salient. This is because the USA’s public sector workforce is rather small; the workers on strike are workers in libraries, post offices, certain train stations, and general labourers in federal buildings. The USA is a famous opponent to the centrally planned system of governance, on which Europe models itself. Seeing the lack of ‘catastrophic shut-down’ since the strike, that which is always envisaged in Ireland whenever an important public sector industry strikes, such as nurses, teachers, or bus drivers; it begs the question as to what level of a government sector we need to run smoothly?
The most basic government involvement which we hypothetically could survive on would be an army, justice system and police force.
As is frequently suggested, should companies like Dublin Bus be privatised? For instance, we could guarantee clean, on-time buses by granting the license on those grounds – wouldn’t we all love that? However, the quieter routes would likely be scrapped by a purely profit-seeking company. Don’t we also like to be able to take that local bus that is perennially empty, save for the odd pensioner running errands? Libertarians in the USA even argue that vital, life-saving services such as that of the fire brigade could be privatised. Imagine that world: there’s a fire in both your garden, and your neighbour’s garden. Your neighbour has paid a subscription to the fire service, but you hadn’t been able to afford it. The fire brigade would come to the scene, extinguish the fire in your neighbour’s garden and refuse to help you; but should the fire spread back to your neighbour’s garden, they would be called back. That is the reality of a privatised fire brigade, and there are many who would say that it is fair and just, such as the town planners of Elk Grove, Illinois, where they have such a system in place.
Stop to consider the real, human consequences of such drastic action.
When it comes to libraries there are more people who would be willing to cut them off the government’s expenditure list. After all, people pay for music, games, and films, why shouldn’t they pay for books? Moreover, if we are to keep libraries, should we not at least digitalize them – no more lost books or late fines. Wouldn’t it clearly be more cost-effective than storing massive amounts of books, many of which are never borrowed, all in one building? Indeed, the most basic government involvement which we hypothetically could survive on would be an army, justice system and police force, with very minimal taxes to fund these. With these in place, the safety of citizens and the continuation of lawful business would be protected; the rest could be left to private enterprises, and consumer demand could determine all that would be needed to have a running society.
However, in light of all this cost analysis, and with national talk of ‘quangos’ and public sector inefficiency, many would be tempted to drastically cut back the size of our public sector, to albeit a less radical level than just outlined. The fact, though, is that we all benefit from the services of which they provide. I, certainly, would rather live in a society where everyone can afford public transport. Where pensioners are not geographically isolated because the bus serves their route; where the fire brigade will not only serve the middle and upper classes, but everyone, and where I can pass a few hours at ease in a library. Of course we should examine the efficiency and need for public services, for which all citizens pay collectively. But as a collective we should remain; think before you rush into the easy talk of scrapping public sector services, and stop to consider the real, human consequences of such drastic action.
