4 ms·

> Our difference of opinion appears to be that you believe a government which collectivizes property to be automatically illegitimate, and one which privatizes

> 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.
  - sbov 15y ago
    And sometimes they make corrupt decisions. For instance, the example given in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2589559 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2589559 seems like an obvious example of corruption. There should absolutely be recourse for actions like this on both ends of the trade rather than just kicking the old guys out and having to buy it back for almost 10x what it was sold for. If you buy stolen property, you're pretty much screwed. If you get sweet deals from corrupt officials, you should get screwed too.
  - piguy314 15y ago
    Seems like we just need constitutional amendments making it illegal to sell any public property below fair market value (as determined by an independent appraiser).

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.
- sbov 15y ago
  And sometimes they make corrupt decisions. For instance, the example given in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2589559 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2589559 seems like an obvious example of corruption. There should absolutely be recourse for actions like this on both ends of the trade rather than just kicking the old guys out and having to buy it back for almost 10x what it was sold for. If you buy stolen property, you're pretty much screwed. If you get sweet deals from corrupt officials, you should get screwed too.
- piguy314 15y ago
  Seems like we just need constitutional amendments making it illegal to sell any public property below fair market value (as determined by an independent appraiser).