posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:49 PM
Originally posted by dbates
It's starting to sound like we're in the U.S.S.R. with Congressmen talking about nationalizing oil refineries.
Nationalizing industry is only a problem if governments are non representative and since Americans do live in a country where they nominally elect
representatives the comparison with the USSR is flawed. In fact the USSR also had elections the only problem being that you could not pick who you
could vote for.
In a true democracy there is no problem with the state having or gaining control over industry as industry is as standard more
tyrannical in form with no chance of true representation.
Do they actually think that they can dish out oil like some sort of welfare state commodity?
Absolutely. Industry does not have to be run for profit and in fact losses will be carried at taxpayer expense without much fanfare if it results in
living wage jobs and cheaper commodities. There is a great myth about the inefficiency of state owned corporations and maybe we can instead focus on
why such a myth has flourished?
They're fools! The min they start regulating the sale and price of oil, the gas lines will grow to traffic jam proportions.
No one said that oil prices should 'regulated'. What is proposed is that governments nationalize the RESOURCES of a given country so as to best
allow the people of that country to exploit them trough elected representatives running corporations in the public interest? Why should the people of
a country not benefit by the resources of that country and why on Earth can we not fund the development of such resources with our taxes? In fact why
have we put up with our tax money being given to private persons so that they may exploit OUR oil for private profit? Why don't they pay us proper
taxes ( so we can build schools and the like) if they are using OUR oil?
Just look at what happened in the 1970s.
What happened in the 1970's other than a artificially created crisis?
As long as the taxes are used in the public interest there is no real and obvious loss. The definition of 'public' interest is where the Democratic
practices of the citizenry comes into play and if ALL industry in a given country could be owned by the people ( nationalization) then the people can
expect industry to please the public or change the government to reflect their needs. I just don't understand how any other system can or should be
control health care,
Not control health care completely but use tax income from the general public to provide a free, or at least heavily subsidised, service to the
citizens who do not have much left after paying said taxes and buying food. What else are governments supposed to do with the tax income? I suppose we
can discuss if we should have government at all but frankly the absence of government is EXACTLY what private industry dreams about. Since they can
not arrange such they do their best to get government to help them for private gain while proceeding to blame all economic ills on the 'government'
for trying to regulate the economy. Sure i can see why they are complaining if governments were most trying to regulate industry for the average
citizens benefits but since that is not often the case they are just keeping up the pretense so as to best protect themselves from legitimate public
and now it's a call for controlling the oil market. Orwellian isn't it? Big Brother needs to take care of you. Just trust him.
And yes, this is a big problem! How much should we give the beast to control knowing that we might fail to control it if it becomes too big? I would
argue that a responsible well educated citizenry can afford nationalization and thus a growing public domain but that peoples who are not far along
the democratic struggle might have a harder time of it. The more organized a citizenry becomes the more able they will be to protect the public domain
from those in it who would use it for personal gain but obviously the fear remains that such much centralized authority may enable abuse.
I suppose it comes down to have much faith you have in human beings and their democratic/lack thereof nature and if you believe that a dictator can
truly be successful without a mandarin class who will run the state machinery without objection. Obviously such experiments have been conducted but
it's hard to say how successful they in fact were knowing that the world has been run by the capitalist classes for a very long time. In such a
hostile environment democracy does not flourish and is in fact actively persecuted and destroyed for the liberalizing effects it normally has on
economic and political rights of the citizenry.
So in conclusion centralization is probably no worse than privatization IF either systems can be regulated by the citizenry. I in fact tend towards a
privatized economy but my ideal would be that it is heavily regulated by the nominal owners of the resources which always has to be the citizens of a