Privatization vs. Nationalization
This is a simple snapshot of the political choice between capitalism and moderate communism. It’s widely understood that the basis of both system, in a faultless society, is the
very same one:
Citizens pay for a service which is delivered accordingly to the payment previously given, like it happens with insurances, or given at the moment of the purchase.
The difference lies on the fact that nationalization has a wider support basis on what poverty is concerned and softens big income differences!
You must, however have in mind that such an advantage doesn’t necessarily make moderate communism and nationalization better. Why? Simply because, on the other hand, there are those who take advantage of the system.
In a capitalist nation a slob will undoubtedly be ‘held responsible’ for his laziness, not having the money to pay for all the servi
ces he needs whilst in completely nationalized nation he’d benefit from perks that supposedly were for the poor.
Noticeable examples of this are guaranteed minimum incomes and those given in case of unemployment. In my country those are about 600 euros combined (about 750$), which were to be given to those in an emergency situation instead of to those that won’t work because of such a fixed income! Such a ‘salary’ is being paid not by ‘the state’ but by our taxes!
Though the choice between privatization and nationalization is a matter of judgement and principles, you must acknowledge the adv
antage that gives to privatization.
The downside is its faulty, lengthy and ‘cheatable’ legislation.
Having in mind both side’s major disadvantages the obvious conclusion drawn would be that a new political system had to be created (to which I’ve given my contribution here), but in lack of such an ‘invention’, it is up to us to choose whether we value liberty or equality the most (those being the ideals each of these political systems stand for)!
4 comentários:
Your remarks touch my heart, yet the conclusion raises doubts. Love needs no law and any system can't make a slob the honorable.
The reality we face may become very challenging, but that means nothing - just forces us to think deeper on WHO are we and WERE are we going
The answer can be just personal.
Good information, thank's
It's more of lack of information and disinformation. Take the case of the Republicans who interpret progressive taxation as socialism. The rich has to do its social responsibilities as well. Just look at the biggest tax cheats, they are not from the working class whose taxes are instantly deducted from their pay checks. Loops holes and corruption give the rich an unfair advantage at growth. I agree with you, we must invent a new system that will promote liberty while espousing equality at the same time. I suppose we can take the best of both idealogies and fuse them into one.
Well, it depends. In a country like India, you can't afford to put necessary commodities in the hands of the private sector for the simple reason that most of the population cannot pay the resultant market price. The public sector needs to subsidize these goods.
Yes, in a perfect world, privatisation should ensure greater efficiency. But we all know it doesn't work that way.
Also, your conclusion doesn't seem feasible in the real world. All we can hope for is better awareness and reform.
Post a Comment