Comments on: Nazi Privatization

By: Grapple

Grapple — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:20:09 +0000

I have read some arguments from “corporate libertarians” who seem to think that having Halliburton on government contracts in Iraq was some sort of “privatization” The fact –

1. That the money was taxpayer money (or more truthfully taxpayer debt),

2. That all the decisions on who was chosen for the contract was made by the government

3. That the specifications for the job were made by the government

4. That the evaluation on the success of the projects are made by the government.

Seems to escape them since their beloved corporation was getting paid. Its almost as ridiculous as the corporate libertarian support for the Dubai Ports deal as “free market” even though Dubai Ports was 100% owned by the Dubai government. It seems that as long as you slap the word “corporation” on something then corporate libertarians will support it, who owns the corporation, where they get their money and how many special privileges they get from the government does not seem important

By: rmangum

rmangum — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:35:59 +0000

Gabb’s analysis of the role of ASI is reminiscent of Murray Rothbard’s denunciation of Milton Friedman as the State’s favorite “Court Libertarian” and person whose career had been devoted to making evil state practices more efficient.

The notion of a Nazi version of Bretton-Woods and UN security counsel is quite chilling. We should probably consider the corporate liberalism of the New Deal and postwar Keynesianism in America as the Fascism that succeeded, and thus avoided being called Fascism.

I also think the term “privateering” is quite apt. Allow me to quote from David Cordingly’s popular book on piracy, “Under the Black Flag”:

“A privateer was an armed vessel, or the commandeer and crew of that vessel, which was licensed to attack and seize the vessels of a hostile nation. . . . by the sixteenth century the system was being used by maritime nations as a cheap way of attacking enemy shipping in time of war. By issuing letters of marque to private ships, the sovereign was saved the cost of building and maintaining a large standing navy.”

And, of course, the natural resentment that comes with conscription. Eerily similar to the role of Blackwater, no?

By: lukas

lukas — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:26:25 +0000

In Russia, they have a great term for privatization gone bad: it’s called prihvatization, a wordplay on hvatat’ (gobble, seize, grab).

By: maswiebe

maswiebe — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:07:31 +0000

Does privatization even count as progress when it just results in corporate monopolies? Does it even count as a step in the right direction?

I think most libertarians believe in privatization as part of their reformist strategy. But if we eliminate reformism, we can get rid of the related problems of privatization.

Also, the term “privatization” should be abandoned, both because of its neoliberalist connotations and because it sounds like jargon. “Privateering” sounds like a good replacement.