• Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA
  • Disclaimer
  • Cookie Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us
Sixsense News
Advertisement
  • Home
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Fintech
  • Finance
  • Insurance
  • Market
  • Startups
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Fintech
  • Finance
  • Insurance
  • Market
  • Startups
No Result
View All Result
Sixsense News
No Result
View All Result
Home Economy

A Cliché of Socialism: Under Public Ownership, We the People Own it!

Gary Galles by Gary Galles
October 7, 2022
in Economy
0

Related articles

Let’s Cut the Budget Nonsense

March 30, 2023

Exclusive-Germans shun foreign deposits on fear of new crisis By Reuters

March 30, 2023

Foundation for Economic Education founder and cornerstone Leonard Read always had an ear out for widely accepted but misleading clichés that served to aggrandize government power and limit liberty. In his 1965 “A Cliché of Socialism: Under Public Ownership, We the People Own It!” He focused his attention on the large gap between public ownership of assets and the idea that “we the people” own them.

Read pointed out that not only is public ownership misunderstood, but that goods privately owned by another party are, in fact much more available to an individual’s control than goods supposedly owned in common by we-the-people:

Public ownership and government control are synonymous terms—two ways of expressing an identical concept.

The popular notion is that a resource or service is the possession of we, the people, when it is under government ownership and dispensation, and that we, the people, are objects of exploitation when resources are under private ownership and willing exchange. Socialism—public ownership—will continue to expand as long as this notion dominates.

Here Read highlights the fact that those who view government ownership as the solution to exploitation which supposedly characterizes private ownership have their argument backward—private ownership is what prevents irresponsible government management and exploitation of government assets’ alleged owners. Until that error is recognized, public ownership and control will expand, which means that individuals’ control of what they supposedly own will continue to shrink:

Public ownership, so-called, contrary to popular notions, is definitely not we-the-people ownership. If it were, we could exchange our share in TVA or the Post Office for dollars, just as we can exchange a share of corporation stock for dollars.

At least two conditions are necessary for ownership to exist: (1) having title, and (2) having control…. Without control, ownership is pure fiction.

While in some vague way “we, the people,” are supposed to have title to TVA, for instance, we have not even a vestige of control. “But,” some will counter, “neither do you control the corporation in which you hold stock.” True, I do not perform the managerial function, but I do control whether or not I’ll retain or sell the stock, which is to say, I control whether or not I will share in the gains or losses. Further, I am free to choose whether or not to work for the corporation or to buy or refrain from buying its products. My control in the non­governmental corporate arrangement is very real, indeed.

So, who controls—has real authority over—what we the people supposedly own?

Who, then, does control and thus own TVA, the Post Office, and the like? At best, it is a nebulous, shifting control—often difficult to identify. Rooted in political plunder, government ownership and operation is an irresponsible control; that is, there is never a responsibility in precise alignment with authority. The mayor of a city may have complete authority over the socialized water system, but responsibility for failure is by no means commensurately assumed by him.

Most people crave authority provided responsibility doesn’t go with it. This explains, in part, why political office is so attractive and why “we, the people,” do not even remotely own what is held in the name of public ownership.

In fact, you have more potential for control over what I own privately than over what you supposedly own as part of the public. After all, you generally have no mechanism of exerting real control over a government decision about one of its assets, while all you need to exert real control over one of my privately held assets is to induce me to voluntarily sell those rights to you. At that point you can exercise all the powers of ownership, aligned with all the responsibility:

One truly owns those things to which he holds exclusive title and exclusive control, and for which he has responsibility.

The things that are privately owned by others are far more available for one’s own title and control than is the case in “public ownership.”

Public ownership often creates … attractive illusions. For instance, people served by TVA are using twice as much power and light as the national average. Why? TVA charges less than half the price. Because of lower production costs? Indeed, not! The rest of us around the nation are taxed to cover the TVA deficit. But power and light acquired in this manner can no more classify as “ours” than can any good or service forcibly extorted from true owners.

Observe that the “public” ownership of water has all but dried up the availability of water for private use. What kind of a social service is it that, by depriving individuals of title and control, finally denies them the service!

If private availability—ownership in the sense of use, title, control—is what interests us, then we will do well to preserve private ownership and an open, willing-exchange market.

Leonard Read’s understanding of the difference between private ownership and control versus we-the-people ownership and lack of control was important when he wrote. But it seems even more important now.

Just consider how popular it is now to demean opponents of leftism as fascists (or semifascists). However, fascism is just a way to maintain a gloss of private ownership (so people can falsely blame capitalism for the abuses that result) over assets the government dictates control of. But virtually every policy those ad hominem hurlers support represents just such government control without accountability.

So, their name-calling amounts to the hypocrisy of supporters of fascist policies calling their opponents fascists. And here, Read’s insight can help us sort out who is more of a fascist. All we must ask is, “Who supports policies that will reduce private owners’ control over the assets they own, and vest it in bodies over which they have no control?”



Source link

Tags: ClichéOwnershipPeoplePublicSocialism

Related Posts

Let’s Cut the Budget Nonsense

by Robert E. Wright
March 30, 2023
0

The Biden administration has floated another bloated budget, one that will put the US national debt at $43.6 trillion by...

Exclusive-Germans shun foreign deposits on fear of new crisis By Reuters

by Reuters
March 30, 2023
0

2/2 © Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The financial district in Frankfurt, Germany, March 18, 2019. REUTERS/Ralph Orlowski/File Photo 2/2 By Francesco...

Jobless claims edge up to 198,000, higher than expected

by Sixsense News
March 30, 2023
0

Initial filings for unemployment insurance ticked higher last week but remained generally low in a tight labor market.Jobless claims for...

Signs of Hope | AIER

by Donald J. Boudreaux
March 30, 2023
0

The past three years did quite a number on my once-high optimism about the future. The eagerness and ease with...

Canada’s fiscal spending moves out of step with overheating economy By Reuters

by Reuters
March 30, 2023
0

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: People shop at the Eaton Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada November 22, 2022. REUTERS/Carlos Osorio (This...

Load More

Green Labs secures $38.4M in debt financing about a month after conducting layoff

March 30, 2023

PayPal’s BNPL offering has an advantage over Apple Pay Later

March 30, 2023

Rockwell Medical, Inc. (RMTI) Q4 2022 Earnings Call Transcript

March 30, 2023

Let’s Cut the Budget Nonsense

March 30, 2023

Crypto wallet company Ledger raises another $108 million

March 30, 2023

Exclusive-Germans shun foreign deposits on fear of new crisis By Reuters

March 30, 2023
Sixsense News

© 2022 Sixsense News All Rights Reserved.

Navigate Site

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA
  • Disclaimer
  • Cookie Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • #3158 (no title)
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Finance
  • Fintech
  • Insurance
  • Market
  • Startups

© 2022 Sixsense News All Rights Reserved.