privatizing "government property"

[Mnrchst]

What do you think is the best method of privatizing government property? Should it go to paying off the government debt first? And if not, or if all government debt is paid off, should it go to a "fund" or "lock box" that the government will withdraw from to pay for services? Or should it go to the citizenry ecumenically in the form of direct payments?

[Atlas-]

The money from the sales should go to pay off all the ridiculous debts governments have accumulated first and then go into it's proper function like all income, that being the enforcement of law.

[AtlasGotHisHeadBlownOff]

Why would you privatize it to begin with? Doesn't seem like a very smart idea to sell the citizens' property to a single citizen so that we pay that one citizen to use it. That makes no sense. Why do you want to arbitrarily redistribute the wealth of citizens' to a single individual?

[softwareNerd]

Why would you privatize it to begin with? Doesn't seem like a very smart idea to sell the citizens' property to a single citizen so that we pay that one citizen to use it. That makes no sense. Why do you want to arbitrarily redistribute the wealth of citizens' to a single individual?

Selling is not giving, nor is it "redistribution". Selling is an exchange of one type of wealth for another: "you give me money and I'll give you stuff, then I'll use the money to buy other stuff". The government may give land and receive money.

If we consider this from your perspective (i.e. supporting statist solutions), the real question is whether the government's aims are better served by keeping some particular piece of property, or whether it is better served selling it and using the money for some other purpose. Yes, you might like to visit the park by your home, but selling it means the money can pay for medicines and food for poor kids. There are millions who depend on food stamps. As a good statist, you should consider whether you ought to give up the walks and bike-rides in that park... give it up "for the children's sake". Either way, from a statist viewpoint, you really have to argue between the two types of uses of government funds; it is not legitimate to argue that selling a public park is the same as giving it away.

From the Objectivist viewpoint, it is not legitimate for a government to be holding on to land or running a passenger railway service the way it does today. If you're not familiar with the Homestead act, check it out here. In general, that category of government law makes sense: laying down rules guidelines about how un-owned property can be claimed. The land is not "citizen's land". Un-owned resources are simply that: un-owned. It is the government's job to lay down rules and procedures to allow people to use, appropriate and claim those un-owned resources.Often, selling the resource may be the best option.

I do not think selling government is a good idea in the short/medium term, unless it is part of a larger plan which also cuts government spending. I think the government ought to sell resources which some private people show a clear desire to exploit. However, I'm against any broad and general push to convert all government-owned assets into cash, because I bet the money will be spent in the same way the government spends today. If voters agree to a comprehensive plan to cut government expenditure now, and also to lay down laws that make it difficult to hike spending again, then I'd be happy to see a sale of government assets to offset some of the "pain" of spending cuts.

[2046]

Why would you privatize it to begin with? Doesn't seem like a very smart idea to sell the citizens' property to a single citizen so that we pay that one citizen to use it. That makes no sense. Why do you want to arbitrarily redistribute the wealth of citizens' to a single individual?

Why would anyone want to redistribute any property to begin with? Because, from that position's point of view, its theory of justice would demand it. We might imagine some group of thieves going "What?! Why would you want to arbitrarily redistribute property that we all use, and then make us have to pay (exchange with) that person if we want to use it? That makes no sense!" Given that you have previously expressed that you didn't think one set of norms can be any more justified than other, it seems strange indeed that you would object to redistribution away form certain people anyway, especially on the grounds of it supposedly being arbitrary (although that was simply asserted and not explained.)

From the Objectivist point of view, there are some people (some of them may be called "citizens," some may be called members of the government apparatus) who have possession of some particular properties that they should not, and so should be made to give it up to legitimate owners in accordance with this system's theory of just ownership. Now given that this theory of ownership is foundational, you should be able to argue against it, but an objection on the grounds that the people who have it don't like that they can no longer have it won't suffice.