nationalization and government

[Miles White]

I was wondering about what Ayn Rands position on nationalization for certain circumstances were. I always thought that it would be ok to nationalize the police,courts, and military in order to prevent private firms from competing with the government but wasn't quite sure how Ayn Rand confronted this problem.

thanks, Mwyn

[Tenure]

Could you just clarify what you mean by 'competing with the government' and why that is bad?

You've got to understand that the government exists to respond to acts (or threats of) acts of force, and its reaction involves force. Nationalisation is a sort of force - it involves forcing the owners of a private business to hand over their property to the government. That can only happen if they have committed a crime themselves, and only in the degree appropriate to see just payment for crimes.

For example, a private security farm might start getting local businesses to pay mob-style 'protection' money, and respond with mob-style tactics if payment isn't received. That would call for government intervention, but that's obvious, hence I wonder what exactly you mean?

Edited November 21, 2007 by Tenure

[Chops]

Objectivism doesn't advocate anarchism. The government's sole role is as protector of individual rights, and in order to do that, the three parts that you mentioned (police, courts, military) are the only legitimate provinces of government. The government must be the *only* organization with a legal monopoly on force. If that's what you mean by "nationalize" then, yes, that is what Objectivism advocates.

Edited November 21, 2007 by Chops

[Miles White]

Could you just clarify what you mean by 'competing with the government' and why that is bad?

What I meant was that if private police firms rise in the free market and start advertising against the government, the populist could be motivated to use the private police instead of the government thus bumping off the government entirely and implement the subjective law of anarchy.

[softwareNerd]

If that's a realistic possibility, a proper government would have laws preventing private "police" and private "armies" from becoming a real threat to the government.

[Miles White]

If that's a realistic possibility, a proper government would have laws preventing private "police" and private "armies" from becoming a real threat to the government.

But I thought "congress shall lay no law abridging the freedom of trade and production" like what judge Narragansett said in the end. I suppose nationalization technically wouldn't count as an initiation of force because law after all is the governments job and any one else who wants to get a job in law must answer to the government.

[Tenure]

What you're talking about is organised vigilantism. I thought you just meant people using private security firms, rather than calling in the police to help them, they'd just call in the security firm who they paid to protect their house, due to them maybe having a higher response time.

Of course, I can't imagine any problem with that, but when it comes to people putting the powers of the initation of force (and other subsidiary powers, like the power of arrest) into the hands of private companies, that's when the problem develops, because, as already said, only the government has a monopoly on force.