4 ms·

You went after his first link but ignored the second one on collectivization which I think is more pertinent. At least with privatization the government, which

You went after his first link but ignored the second one on collectivization which I think is more pertinent. At least with privatization the government, which represents the interests of the people, acts within its mandate: It sells assets that belong to the people. With collectivism the government is coercing citizens to give up property against their will. If anything, collectivism is theft.

asciilifeform 15y ago
With collectivization, the government, assuming that it represents the interests of its people, is also acting within its mandate. Our difference of opinion appears to be that you believe a government which collectivizes property to be automatically illegitimate, and one which privatizes formerly collectivized property to be automatically legitimate. You define the act of nationalizing property to be one which leads to loss of legitimacy. There are excellent reasons to believe that most Soviet citizens opposed privatization. In that case, the Western "democracies" lie through their teeth when they claim that "the will of the people was done."
- chc 15y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding. The government represents the people as a whole. If the people as a whole (i.e. the government) take something from one individual person, that could reasonably said to be theft. (It isn't necessarily theft, but it's not an unreasonable viewpoint.) If the people as a whole (i.e. the government) sell something they own to one individual person, that cannot be theft. The nation cannot rob itself. That's the distinction being drawn here.
  - asciilifeform 15y ago
    If the people as a whole (i.e. the government) sell something they own to one individual person, that cannot be theft. The nation cannot rob itself. Jesuitry. If the US Congress sells its entire collective political power to Warren Buffett, who then becomes Fuhrer, nothing has been stolen from anyone?
    - lupatus 15y ago
      Your civics is weak. If Buffett bought the Congress, he would also need to buy the Judiciary and the Executive branches before he would have the power of a "Fuhrer". Furthermore, the states could then revoke their consent to be governed by the Federal Government, just as they have revoked their consent to by governed by other authorities in the past (see the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Confederate States of America).
      - asciilifeform 15y ago
        Your civics is weak... he would also need to buy the Judiciary and the Executive branches In practice, owning the legislature would probably suffice. There are provisions for a Congressionally-declared state of martial law. Confederate States of America This last one is a good guide to what will happen if a state were to "revoke its consent to be governed."
        philwelch 15y ago
        "There are provisions for a Congressionally-declared state of martial law." Where? I've read the entire Constitution and didn't find anything of the kind. And amending the Constitution requires the approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures.
- guygurari 15y ago
  > Our difference of opinion appears to be that you believe a government which collectivizes property to be automatically illegitimate, and one which privatizes formerly collectivized property to be automatically legitimate. You define the act of nationalizing property to be one which leads to loss of legitimacy. I'm not thinking in such absolutes. Any government must balance individual rights against society's interests. Sometimes collectivization is reasonable. However, collectivization involves coercion and therefore should be employed only in extreme cases. On the other hand, privatization is a deal between two willing and legitimate parties, with no coercion involved. Specifically the government is entrusted by the people to manage its assets, and selling an asset is a legitimate transaction. The problems with privatization lie with the execution rather than the idea. Many governments don't properly represent the interests of the people in such transactions, either because of incompetence or because of corruption. But with governments' conduct, incompetence and corruption seem to be the rule rather than the exception. > There are excellent reasons to believe that most Soviet citizens opposed privatization. In that case, the Western "democracies" lie through their teeth when they claim that "the will of the people was done." In representative democracies, what "most" citizens think about a specific government decision carries no weight. If the citizens are unhappy with the government, they can protest and they can vote to replace the government. But it is crucial that making unpopular decisions does not revoke the legitimacy of the government.
  - asciilifeform 15y ago
    If the citizens are unhappy with the government, they can protest and they can vote to replace the government. How much good does this do you once the government has sold off the national infrastructure (and perhaps even its own sovereign powers) to mafiosi, foreigners, and their agents? Where can you vote for reversing the destruction of industries which took 70 years to build? Where is the voting booth where you can go to vote against having had your popular culture murdered through vulgarization?
    - guygurari 15y ago
      > How much good does this do you once the government has sold off the national infrastructure ... It does a lot of good if you vote in a government that buys back said infrastructure. "Sold" does not equal "destroyed". But let me address your more general point as I understand it. There is no system that will protect you from a government that makes terrible decisions that destroy the country. What is your solution? Don't allow the government to sell anything? That's like banning knives because knives can be used for murder. Or perhaps have a committee that decides what can be sold? Well the government is already such a committee. The only "solution" I see is to decide the government owns everything, so nothing important can be sold by mistake. Well the evidence of the previous century suggests that this creates much worse problems than it solves. This system has been tried, and it failed. Governments, and people in general, make terrible decisions. Some of them outright disastrous. The best you can hope for is a system that lets you minimize the damage. Today it seems that democracy and capitalism is the best combination we have for minimizing the pain inflicted by people upon themselves.

asciilifeform 15y ago

With collectivization, the government, assuming that it represents the interests of its people, is also acting within its mandate. Our difference of opinion appears to be that you believe a government which collectivizes property to be automatically illegitimate, and one which privatizes formerly collectivized property to be automatically legitimate. You define the act of nationalizing property to be one which leads to loss of legitimacy. There are excellent reasons to believe that most Soviet citizens opposed privatization. In that case, the Western "democracies" lie through their teeth when they claim that "the will of the people was done."

chc 15y ago
I think you're misunderstanding. The government represents the people as a whole. If the people as a whole (i.e. the government) take something from one individual person, that could reasonably said to be theft. (It isn't necessarily theft, but it's not an unreasonable viewpoint.) If the people as a whole (i.e. the government) sell something they own to one individual person, that cannot be theft. The nation cannot rob itself. That's the distinction being drawn here.
- asciilifeform 15y ago
  If the people as a whole (i.e. the government) sell something they own to one individual person, that cannot be theft. The nation cannot rob itself. Jesuitry. If the US Congress sells its entire collective political power to Warren Buffett, who then becomes Fuhrer, nothing has been stolen from anyone?
  - lupatus 15y ago
    Your civics is weak. If Buffett bought the Congress, he would also need to buy the Judiciary and the Executive branches before he would have the power of a "Fuhrer". Furthermore, the states could then revoke their consent to be governed by the Federal Government, just as they have revoked their consent to by governed by other authorities in the past (see the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Confederate States of America).
    - asciilifeform 15y ago
      Your civics is weak... he would also need to buy the Judiciary and the Executive branches In practice, owning the legislature would probably suffice. There are provisions for a Congressionally-declared state of martial law. Confederate States of America This last one is a good guide to what will happen if a state were to "revoke its consent to be governed."
      - philwelch 15y ago
        "There are provisions for a Congressionally-declared state of martial law." Where? I've read the entire Constitution and didn't find anything of the kind. And amending the Constitution requires the approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures.
guygurari 15y ago
> Our difference of opinion appears to be that you believe a government which collectivizes property to be automatically illegitimate, and one which privatizes formerly collectivized property to be automatically legitimate. You define the act of nationalizing property to be one which leads to loss of legitimacy. I'm not thinking in such absolutes. Any government must balance individual rights against society's interests. Sometimes collectivization is reasonable. However, collectivization involves coercion and therefore should be employed only in extreme cases. On the other hand, privatization is a deal between two willing and legitimate parties, with no coercion involved. Specifically the government is entrusted by the people to manage its assets, and selling an asset is a legitimate transaction. The problems with privatization lie with the execution rather than the idea. Many governments don't properly represent the interests of the people in such transactions, either because of incompetence or because of corruption. But with governments' conduct, incompetence and corruption seem to be the rule rather than the exception. > There are excellent reasons to believe that most Soviet citizens opposed privatization. In that case, the Western "democracies" lie through their teeth when they claim that "the will of the people was done." In representative democracies, what "most" citizens think about a specific government decision carries no weight. If the citizens are unhappy with the government, they can protest and they can vote to replace the government. But it is crucial that making unpopular decisions does not revoke the legitimacy of the government.
- asciilifeform 15y ago
  If the citizens are unhappy with the government, they can protest and they can vote to replace the government. How much good does this do you once the government has sold off the national infrastructure (and perhaps even its own sovereign powers) to mafiosi, foreigners, and their agents? Where can you vote for reversing the destruction of industries which took 70 years to build? Where is the voting booth where you can go to vote against having had your popular culture murdered through vulgarization?
  - guygurari 15y ago
    > How much good does this do you once the government has sold off the national infrastructure ... It does a lot of good if you vote in a government that buys back said infrastructure. "Sold" does not equal "destroyed". But let me address your more general point as I understand it. There is no system that will protect you from a government that makes terrible decisions that destroy the country. What is your solution? Don't allow the government to sell anything? That's like banning knives because knives can be used for murder. Or perhaps have a committee that decides what can be sold? Well the government is already such a committee. The only "solution" I see is to decide the government owns everything, so nothing important can be sold by mistake. Well the evidence of the previous century suggests that this creates much worse problems than it solves. This system has been tried, and it failed. Governments, and people in general, make terrible decisions. Some of them outright disastrous. The best you can hope for is a system that lets you minimize the damage. Today it seems that democracy and capitalism is the best combination we have for minimizing the pain inflicted by people upon themselves.