Comments on: There’s privatization, and then there’s privatization

By: BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Dubai Ports: What’s wrong and how to fight it

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:40:55 +0000

[...] Because governments systematically violate peoples natural rights in a myriad of ways, they are essentially criminal organizations — bandits — and thus can not rightfully own or transfer any property. This point ought to inform libertarian approaches to privatization, but it often doesn’t. [...]

By: BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Outsourcing City Hall

BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Outsourcing City Hall — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:05:09 +0000

[...] As I’ve said before: “Thereâ€™s privatization, and then thereâ€™s privatization“ [...]

By: Notes on Building a Theory of Revolution, Part 2 » Rational Review

Notes on Building a Theory of Revolution, Part 2 » Rational Review — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:49:37 +0000

[...] Libertarian Class Theory and a proper understanding of the nature of property rights suggest other potential avenues. As I’ve noted before, the true state is the entire political class, the parasitic net beneficiaries of the coercive apparatus of government. One of the most often overlooked aspects of Rothbards thought is that Lockean property rights exist independently of their recognition by government and that, as a bandit gang, the state can not rightfully own anything. While corrupt government “privatization” schemes that benefit large corporations are thus seen as mere transfer of assets to a different arm of the political class, genuine privatization, or people’s privatization, would consist of extra-legal and decentralized asset seizure from all parts of the political class — cooperation in such seizure resulting not from direction by a Bolshevist vanguard party, but by an interlocking network of private arbitrators recognizing the legitimacy of the new “homesteaders” claims to the formerly unowned parcels of property. [...]

By: BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Two great Rothbard quotes

BradSpangler.com » Blog Archive » Two great Rothbard quotes — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:40:22 +0000

[...] It’s literally true in the sense that a stateless society would have no government to be the de facto owner of public property. The word privatization, though, is often used to refer to the various sorts of government-business partnerships decried above, which any real libertarian ought to be opposed to. I’ve posted on this topic before. [...]

By: Notes on building a theory of revolution » Rational Review

Notes on building a theory of revolution » Rational Review — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:48:56 +0000

[...] Libertarians are often said to be in favor of “privatizing everything.” But privatization through state-conducted initiatives is in reality often just the fencing of stolen goods. The state says to its political class supporters, “hang on to this asset, so it can be nominally privatized” — without the original theft or the issue of inability of a bandit gang to legitimately own or trade anything being addressed. [...]

By: Knappster

Knappster — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:58:34 +0000

The fly in the ointment

As Brad Spangler points out, there’s privatization, and then there’s privatization. This is one area where “right” libertarians have been running the table on “left” libertarians for decades — and it’s time and past time to ask whether or not t…

By: Brad Spangler

Brad Spangler — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:07:12 +0000

“Good post.”

Thanks!

“By the way, the Kevin Carson link actually goes to the Claire Wolfe post.”

Whoops! That’s what I get for trying to edit and compose at the same time. Fixed it.

By: freeman

freeman — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:57:39 +0000

Good post. There is a distinction between types of privatization and deregulation that needs to be made in order to prevent libertarian ideas from being damaged in the realm of public opinion. Just because we favor free markets, which include promoting privatization and deregulation, doesn’t mean that we necessarily support everything labeled as such. Your expanded definition of the state shows how not everything that falls into this category leads to a net gain of liberty.

By the way, the Kevin Carson link actually goes to the Claire Wolfe post.