Why is that the “only” way to do that? Surely one can think of many other ways to go about that than selling off property. Why would you sell it anyway, you can only sell something you own as your property in the first place, and since the reason we’re selling it is because you don’t want the government to own it, then isn’t that a bit weird?
Quite right. Your correction is gratefully accepted. For sure there is more than one way to deal with this issue. And the term “sell” is also wrong. I meant a distribution of the value of the property which is currently owned by government in the form of shares, that is- a privatization. People then could trade these shares but government will use the property.
But if you’re right about all of the above then I think you’ve found an unsolvable contradiction.
If we need a centralized government in order to live properly, and if said government must consist of a few highly-specialized people (implying that it must be a full-time job with all of the perks afforded to the status quo), then this government must own governmental property.
Government property would be public property (because private-government property would be feudalism), which is incompatible with hands-off capitalism.
Somewhere along the line there must be a false premise; otherwise Capitalism is an impossible ideal.
No, it doesn’t. Government property could be privatized. To control and to own is not the same. Hospital manager controls hospital property but doesn’t own it. He’s a payed employee. The government should be exactly the same.
Truly? I know they aren’t exactly synonymous, but aren’t they essentially the same?
To use your analogy, a manager controls his building and staff to some extent but only to that extent. If he makes some truly outrageous decision then the actual owners (ultimately the shareholders) can fire him at any point.
To own something necessarily means to control it.
One may control something without ownership (as with managers) but, in such cases, that control is ownership-by-proxy; the controller has the consent of the true owner to stand in for them conditionally.
So, if the government were to control any piece of property as the owner’s proxy, the owner (citizens) must retain the right to fire it- which would be revolution.
This might provide a solution to your problem (?); I don’t know. But ownership necessitates control.
So, if the government were to control any piece of property as the owner’s proxy, the owner (citizens) must retain the right to fire it- which would be revolution.
Exactly… and if citizens revolt, they can do so whether the govt “owns” property or “controls” it. They would simply ignore the fake notion of government non-ownership of property it controls.
This might provide a solution to your problem (?); … …
So, no this does not solve Leonid’s “problem” in the real world, though it might suffice because the bottom line it to keep to the letter of some sentence.
Truly? I know they aren’t exactly synonymous, but aren’t they essentially the same?
To use your analogy, a manager controls his building and staff to some extent but only to that extent. If he makes some truly outrageous decision then the actual owners (ultimately the shareholders) can fire him at any point.
To own something necessarily means to control it.
One may control something without ownership (as with managers) but, in such cases, that control is ownership-by-proxy; the controller has the consent of the true owner to stand in for them conditionally.
So, if the government were to control any piece of property as the owner’s proxy, the owner (citizens) must retain the right to fire it- which would be revolution.
This might provide a solution to your problem (?); I don’t know. But ownership necessitates control.
Not by means of revolution but simply by cutting funds. If CEO makes an outrageous decision, values of shares will drop, people will disinvest and the company will go bankrupt.