3 ms·

Fire departments and police departments began as private companies; see the history of NYC. They were nationalized to limit the massive corruption associated wi

Fire departments and police departments began as private companies; see the history of NYC. They were nationalized to limit the massive corruption associated with private fire departments (i.e., fire departments deliberately setting fire to rivals' customers). But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. The closest it can get is buying a private company, or creating a public agency or public-private partnership, all of which California has done before.

gumby 4y ago
> But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. The closest it can get is buying a private company, or creating a public agency or public-private partnership, all of which California has done before. Or build its own competition. Quite a few califonia cities run their own utilities; Palo Alto started and ran its own phone company (sold to Pac Bell in the late 50s) and cable system (foolishly and destructively sold to crapcast in the '00s) but runs its own water, electricity, and gas system. Several counties run their own utility systems, often in cooperation. However the high speed rail project suggests that this is not the time for California to enter into such projects. A century ago progressivism flourished, building water, road, and other crucial infrastructure that we still depend on. But the "revolution" of the late 70s and 80s cut away all the maintenance and support for further such projects in the name of ideology.
nitwit005 4y ago
> But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. Eminent domain is in both the US constitution and the California state constitution. You usually have to provide compensation of course, but they made a list of exceptions that includes utilities: https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-19/ https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/sec...
- yucky 4y ago
  That is for seizing land, not seizing and nationalizing a private business.
smorrow 4y ago
The fire conventional wisdom thing is just that: conventional wisdom. Debunked in this week's Tom Scott video.

gumby 4y ago

> But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. The closest it can get is buying a private company, or creating a public agency or public-private partnership, all of which California has done before. Or build its own competition. Quite a few califonia cities run their own utilities; Palo Alto started and ran its own phone company (sold to Pac Bell in the late 50s) and cable system (foolishly and destructively sold to crapcast in the '00s) but runs its own water, electricity, and gas system. Several counties run their own utility systems, often in cooperation. However the high speed rail project suggests that this is not the time for California to enter into such projects. A century ago progressivism flourished, building water, road, and other crucial infrastructure that we still depend on. But the "revolution" of the late 70s and 80s cut away all the maintenance and support for further such projects in the name of ideology.

nitwit005 4y ago

> But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. Eminent domain is in both the US constitution and the California state constitution. You usually have to provide compensation of course, but they made a list of exceptions that includes utilities: https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-19/ https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/sec...

yucky 4y ago
That is for seizing land, not seizing and nationalizing a private business.

smorrow 4y ago

The fire conventional wisdom thing is just that: conventional wisdom. Debunked in this week's Tom Scott video.