- #1
Smurf
- 442
- 3
This is part of a larger thing I'm writing in response to the Smurf thread, but I thought it warranted a thread by it's self because it's on a slightly different topic.
One thing people often say to me is that they don't understand how I can be an anti-statist and be against privatization at the same time. To them, it sounds logical that I would want less direct government control over institutions if I'm against the government first and formost.
Privatization does not remove government control. If the state wants to stop you from doing something (usually under the rhetorical guise of "crime" or some such) hiding in your house, which is not 'owned' by the government, will not stop them. Privatization does not remove any piece of property, and item of belonging, from ultimate state control if the state has reason to desire such control. Furthermore, the state is, at least in Canada and the countries most affected by privatization, subject to popular control – however limited. A building directly controlled by a government that is partially subject to the will of the people is more democratic (I hold that Anarchy is Democracy, real democracy) than a building directly controlled by some individual who can do whatever he wants without being subject to the will of the people, because through this concept of "ownership" his actions are legitimized. For example, if a factory was dumping it's waste into a river and the local inhabitants did not approve, it would be easier to get this to stop if it was owned by the state than if it was owned by a private individual.
The reason for this is because of two things, firstly, directly through state democratic institutions, such as elections, the government might be replaced if they don't stop dumping the waste, and secondly, because of the general belief that the government is supposed to be nice to people. The more pressure the government gets, even if they have no likelihood of losing the next election, they will be more likely to stop dumping the factory waste into the river.
Private ownership is exempt from both these effects. There is no way for the populace to 'vote' for the private property to stop acting the way it does, and have their decision enforced*, and there is no or little effect from mere pressure (this is assuming that people who disagree don't organize and boycott the factory or something. And historically that doesn't happen – people arn't good at protesting anything but the government for some reason (probably the belief of legitimiacy)).
* This may seem inconsistant with my belief that majority rule is unethical. However, majority rule, while ridiculous and fallicious, is better than minority rule. (consensus is preferable to both)
One thing people often say to me is that they don't understand how I can be an anti-statist and be against privatization at the same time. To them, it sounds logical that I would want less direct government control over institutions if I'm against the government first and formost.
Privatization does not remove government control. If the state wants to stop you from doing something (usually under the rhetorical guise of "crime" or some such) hiding in your house, which is not 'owned' by the government, will not stop them. Privatization does not remove any piece of property, and item of belonging, from ultimate state control if the state has reason to desire such control. Furthermore, the state is, at least in Canada and the countries most affected by privatization, subject to popular control – however limited. A building directly controlled by a government that is partially subject to the will of the people is more democratic (I hold that Anarchy is Democracy, real democracy) than a building directly controlled by some individual who can do whatever he wants without being subject to the will of the people, because through this concept of "ownership" his actions are legitimized. For example, if a factory was dumping it's waste into a river and the local inhabitants did not approve, it would be easier to get this to stop if it was owned by the state than if it was owned by a private individual.
The reason for this is because of two things, firstly, directly through state democratic institutions, such as elections, the government might be replaced if they don't stop dumping the waste, and secondly, because of the general belief that the government is supposed to be nice to people. The more pressure the government gets, even if they have no likelihood of losing the next election, they will be more likely to stop dumping the factory waste into the river.
Private ownership is exempt from both these effects. There is no way for the populace to 'vote' for the private property to stop acting the way it does, and have their decision enforced*, and there is no or little effect from mere pressure (this is assuming that people who disagree don't organize and boycott the factory or something. And historically that doesn't happen – people arn't good at protesting anything but the government for some reason (probably the belief of legitimiacy)).
* This may seem inconsistant with my belief that majority rule is unethical. However, majority rule, while ridiculous and fallicious, is better than minority rule. (consensus is preferable to both)