POLL: State ownership / Nationalisation

[Liquid]

We often talk about what is and isn't owned by the state and what should and shouldn't be owned by the state. I tried to think of the most commonly state owned enterprises in the UK and US in history as an example, but feel free to state others.

Just curious to know.

 

[Carbonox]

Other [Please State]

Pun intended?

 

[Joel]

Voted military, police, and prisons, and police/prison implies the courts to me. I could also accept firefighting and ambulance as well as roads but don't think they necessarily need to be state owned.

Essentially it comes down to what I consider the legitimate functions of government which is to protect the rights and liberty of its citizens from both internal (police) and external (military) threats.

 

[Lizard]

I'm a socialist so I voted: Schools, prisons, buses, trains, post, hospitals, ambulance, police, courts, fire and the military.

 

[Liquid]

@haitch40 As a socialist, why did you choose railways but not airlines or buses?

 

[Lizard]

@haitch40 As a socialist, why did you choose railways but not airlines or buses?

I did choose buses.

Airlines aren't necessary for people to get to work unless you have a meeting abroad so I think it is fine to leave that to the market.
I am what is known as a market socialist. I believe in a capitalist market but a lot of government intervention.

Yes I know what you are going to say. The nationalised stuff has delays. Not if it is done right. The Japanese train service is nationalised (mostly) and always on time.

 

[PeterJB]

Same as @haitch40, though I forgot to put buses and post.

 

[Liquid]

@haitch40 @PeterJB

The reason countries such as Germany, France and Japan are famed for reliable trains is because they were bombed in WW2 and in the aftermath, those countries had the opportunity to rip up most of their existing railway lines and start again with more careful route planning and thought for future expansion and investment. Or in Japan's case I believe, actually start building them.

In Britain, we are stuck with the same infrastructure that has been going on with no future consideration since the 1820s. The railways which sprang up during railway mania and later in the 19th century have created a network of lines which did not consider other existing lines or the effect of a national system. The fact that we were the prototype thanks to inventing the railway system means we are left with an infrastructure which will never be efficient; can you imagine the hassle and fuss and cost to rip up British lines and starting again? Much easier to do when your country has been shelled into oblivion.

Curiously enough, the United Kingdom has privatised companies (excluding East Coast) and stations barring certain major stations but has nationalised infrastructure; the tracks and signals are all under Network Rail, which is not owned by the government but is not-for-profit and funded by the government. Incidentally, Japan and Germany both have private rail companies and are not fully nationalised industries.

The same can also be said of buses and roads in general; historic network not ripped up thanks to bombing leads to awkward networks.

 

[Imari]

The Japanese train service is nationalised (mostly) and always on time.

No, it's not. It's privately owned. All of it, or as near as makes no difference. Japan Rail owns the vast majority of the Japanese rail network, and it was sold off to private owners in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railways_Group

 

[cjr3559]

@haitch40 @PeterJB

The reason countries such as Germany, France and Japan are famed for reliable trains is because they were bombed in WW2 and in the aftermath, those countries had the opportunity to rip up most of their existing railway lines and start again with more careful route planning and thought for future expansion and investment. Or in Japan's case I believe, actually start building them.

In Britain, we are stuck with the same infrastructure that has been going on with no future consideration since the 1820s. The railways which sprang up during railway mania and later in the 19th century have created a network of lines which did not consider other existing lines or the effect of a national system. The fact that we were the prototype thanks to inventing the railway system means we are left with an infrastructure which will never be efficient; can you imagine the hassle and fuss and cost to rip up British lines and starting again? Much easier to do when your country has been shelled into oblivion.

Curiously enough, the United Kingdom has privatised companies (excluding East Coast) and stations barring certain major stations but has nationalised infrastructure; the tracks and signals are all under Network Rail, which is not owned by the government but is not-for-profit and funded by the government. Incidentally, Japan and Germany both have private rail companies and are not fully nationalised industries.

The same can also be said of buses and roads in general; historic network not ripped up thanks to bombing leads to awkward networks.

The U.S. Railway history is remarkably similar, and interestingly the majority of the eastern portion of the country wound up becoming owned and operated by the government after automobile boom caused massive debt and bankruptcies in the 1960s and 70s. After much consolidation and reworking the government actually sold everything at a profit to the surviving railroads about 15 years ago. And this was only freight traffic.

 

[Joel]

Airlines aren't necessary for people to get to work unless you have a meeting abroad, so I think it is fine to leave that to the market.

Sure, if the whole world is western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. If I'm a Canadian working in Toronto I'm not taking a train to a meeting in Vancouver, nor does someone take a bus from NYC to LA. I'm curious why you would support buses and trains presumably because they'd provide economic benefits for people in exchange for public money, yet don't support public money for airlines which would also provide economic benefits. Buses and trains aren't inherently necessary for people to get to work either.

It's pretty arbitrary that it's fine to leave airlines to the market because people go abroad, particularly these days where the EU's economy is so tightly linked and where Canadians and Americans frequently cross the border for mutually beneficial trade. The point of socialism is for government intervention in the market for the good of the general public. If it creates an economic benefit for a country to fund transportation, why does it matter if the economic benefit comes from foreign business?

Air travel for business isn't all about fat cat CEO's going to vague meetings and playing golf. Salespeople, middle managers, small business owners, maintenance managers for car dealers, and tons of other average middle income people use air travel for business. Why should we support funding rail that makes it easy for CEO's to travel between Paris and Frankfurt by train, or buses and subways that make it easy for the rich to live in the suburbs, but not air travel to go from London to Zurich?

I'm a socialist so I voted: Schools, prisons, buses, trains, post, hospitals, ambulance, police, courts, fire and the military.

Why post and not telecommunications? Or utilities for that matter?

 

[MarchingSaint]

In my opinion the governament should own everything, but not detain monopoly over everything; to me there must be the public schools and hospitals (maintained by the governament) and private hospitals and schools.
In my view the state has to look for its own people, giving them all they need for, including the choice to not entrust state institutions.

 

[Liquid]

@MarchingSaint When you say everything, do you really mean everything? Like government owned supermarkets and abattoirs? Government clothes shops, government coin shops, government scale model shops, government bars and restaurants?

I know I'm being pedantic but that's the point of this thread; it's too easy to say "everything" without actually meaning it so one should try and list the actual enterprises that should be state owned instead.

 

[DK]

I wonder, does infrastructure come under Other? I don't like the idea of a privately-owned road network (or other infrastructure such as an electricity grid). I don't mind privately-owned telecoms/transport/utilities companies, as competition in those sectors doesn't involve duplication of resources. Given two settlements <10-20km apart, would there be any sense in having two competing privately-owned roads between them?

 

[MarchingSaint]

@MarchingSaint When you say everything, do you really mean everything? Like government owned supermarkets and abattoirs? Government clothes shops, government coin shops, government scale model shops, government bars and restaurants?

I know I'm being pedantic but that's the point of this thread; it's too easy to say "everything" without actually meaning it so one should try and list the actual enterprises that should be state owned instead.

Actually i used pretty heavy words there saying "everything" and i might have been not much explanatory.
By the way i meant this:
The state should own

• At least a company in trasportation, in general (a company that runs railroads,ferries,busses,airplanes etc) or in tha specific field (one in the railroads, one for the airplanes etc)
• The governament should care about public healthcare but at the same time incourage private facilities for research and development

any agency that might exercise "strenght" over people to abide law( police, military etc) must be governmental and in any case be private. (except detective and security agency, private as now)

for the rest, a company for comunications, oil and energy in general.( except firemen and banks, those count as police and similar)

By the way i found really hard writing this post.

I wonder, does infrastructure come under Other? I don't like the idea of a privately-owned road network (or other infrastructure such as an electricity grid). I don't mind privately-owned telecoms/transport/utilities companies, as competition in those sectors doesn't involve duplication of resources. Given two settlements <10-20km apart, would there be any sense in having two competing privately-owned roads between them?

From where i am private companies can only work under contract of the government; if we need a road there's a contest among the interested companies in doing the job, the best idea ( usually the less expensive, fastest and more reliable) wins and the company that proposed it gets foundings to start building.
ps: double post, i'm sorry.

 

[Keef]

No, it's not. It's privately owned. All of it, or as near as makes no difference. Japan Rail owns the vast majority of the Japanese rail network, and it was sold off to private owners in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railways_Group

It says clearly that all of the market shares of Hokkaido, Shikoku, Kyushu and the Freight operations are owned by the government. The rest (less than half the operations) is owned by branches of the same company which do not compete with each other. It's effectively a government-instituted and regulated monopoly masquerading as a private entity. It is anything but private.

How strong is the socialist nationalization movement in Australia again?

 

[Imari]

It says clearly that all of the market shares of Hokkaido, Shikoku, Kyushu and the Freight operations are owned by the government. The rest (less than half the operations) is owned by branches of the same company which do not compete with each other.

Fair enough, I didn't see that.

So you've got Kyushu, Shikoku, and Hokkaido (which happen to be the tiniest parts of Japan), and the Freight section which I imagine is relatively massive.

And then you have private ownership of East, West and Central which happens to include almost all of the really big Japanese cities, and the other 30% of non-JR privately owned lines.

Even saying that the Japanese network is mostly nationalised seems to be a bit of a stretch in that situation, since I don't see how the part that is owned by the state could be much more than 50%, and would probably be much less than that.

I stand by questioning the statement that the Japanese rail network is mostly nationalised, and the inference that that's the reason why they're so punctual.

How strong is the socialist nationalization movement in Australia again?

I have no idea. Why?

 

[Keef]

Even saying that the Japanese network is mostly nationalised seems to be a bit of a stretch in that situation, since I don't see how the part that is owned by the state could be much more than 50%, and would probably be much less than that.

I stand by questioning the statement that the Japanese rail network is mostly nationalised, and the inference that that's the reason why they're so punctual.

The punctuality is a culture thing. The Japanese have long valued precision and efficiency.

As for the "privatized" sections of the rail network, you need to observe the fact that they are all run by separate departments of the same company. There is no competition. The government designed the operation. It is not private in any capitalistic sense but instead operate similarly to something we have in the US called a Government-Sponsored Enterprise.

Two of these are rather well know, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They dabble in the mortgage business. They were designed and chartered to do a specific job by the Federal government. Though their stocks are traded on the market, they operate based on the government charter. They are not private corporations, they are GSEs. The "privatized" rail networks in Japan are basically the same thing.

I have no idea. Why?

I wanted to know, because I'm American and full of myself, if the fact that you didn't know the Japanese rail system wasn't actually private had anything to do with Australian (basically fearless and racist ex-Europeans) societal bias about capitalistic principles. But I mean it's the Japanese rail network so I shouldn't expect anybody to know much about it. The concept of Government-Sponsored Enterprises isn't exactly common knowledge in the US, either.

EDIT: I can tell @Omnis voted because police and prisons are missing exactly 1 vote out of the maximum. Damn anarcho-crapitalists.

 

[Imari]

As for the "privatized" sections of the rail network, you need to observe the fact that they are all run by separate departments of the same company. There is no competition. The government designed the operation. It is not private in any capitalistic sense but instead operate similarly to something we have in the US called a Government-Sponsored Enterprise.

Two of these are rather well know, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They dabble in the mortgage business. They were designed and chartered to do a specific job by the Federal government. Though their stocks are traded on the market, they operate based on the government charter. They are not private corporations, they are GSEs. The "privatized" rail networks in Japan are basically the same thing.

I suppose it depends what you mean when you say privatised.

I'm simply referring to who owns it. I don't care how it runs.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between a privately owned company that is wholly independent, and a privately owned company that is an offshoot of a government industry and still contains a lot of that structure and the connections associated with it.

I wanted to know, because I'm American and full of myself, if the fact that you didn't know the Japanese rail system wasn't actually private had anything to do with Australian (basically fearless and racist ex-Europeans) societal bias about capitalistic principles. But I mean it's the Japanese rail network so I shouldn't expect anybody to know much about it. The concept of Government-Sponsored Enterprises isn't exactly common knowledge in the US, either.

What I know about the Japanese rail network is from four years of living in Osaka, where the major rail lines tend not to be JR, and the general impression I had of JR was that it was an ex-government industry. At least, no one ever told me different, although I never exactly researched it.

Also, I'm not Australian, I just happen to live in Australia, so you should probably be wary of making any generalisations about Australians from your interactions with me.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I find it hard to believe the poll results. So many Socialists here.

I voted yes for military, police and prisons.

No on everything else.

 

[Liquid]

EDIT: I can tell @Omnis voted because police and prisons are missing exactly 1 vote out of the maximum. Damn anarcho-crapitalists.

I'm curious as to who it was who didn't vote police and military and why.

 

[Imari]

I'm curious as to who it was who didn't vote police and military and why.

I always thought that the state was defined as the group with military control over the region. I'd be interested to hear if there are examples where this isn't true.

 

[Liquid]

I always thought that the state was defined as the group with military control over the region.

This puts a lot of African regimes, dictatorships and coup d'etats into perspective and arguably some of the recent events with ISIS too; they do have military superiority in some areas over the de jure governments but does this make them a state and are they still a private guerrilla force in that event?

 

[Imari]

This puts a lot of African regimes, dictatorships and coup d'etats into perspective and arguably some of the recent events with ISIS too; they do have military superiority in some areas over the de jure governments but does this make them a state and are they still a private guerrilla force in that event?

Interesting.

I guess bar the odd transitional period where it's unclear exactly who is in power, if those people remain in military control for long enough then they probably become the state. If for no other reason than they have ultimate power over any decisions made in that area, through use of violence if necessary. Another group may be actually running the country day to day, but any power that they are allowed to wield is at the whim of those holding the guns.

I guess maybe the state is the group who are accepted when they form military groups, although accepted by who is probably a relevant question.

No one questions that the Australian government has the sole right to create a military force within Australia, although they can grant these powers to others also. In the case of war-torn countries, I guess the "debate" is over which group has the right to create a military force within that region.

I'd like to believe that statehood isn't simply defined by military power, but that unfortunately seems to be the lowest common denominator. As soon as one state attempts to expand by aggression or the citizens attempt to overthrow the ruling class by aggression, the rulers are required to meet that aggression with a military of some kind.


I'm not really too sure about this (although it is interesting), it's not something that I've considered in great depth previously. I'm sort of thinking as I'm going here, so if people can see where I'm going wrong then please point it out. Statecraft and politics isn't exactly my forte.

 

[Keef]

The basic premise of anarcho-capitalism is that everything a society needs can be provided on a for-hire basis. There is no State, there is only a free market and the rights of the individuals within it.

I personally don't see this as a permanent solution on a large scale. It can work in very small societies and has in the past but on a large scale I believe you need a strictly limited, non-profit third party to uphold laws.

 

[Liquid]

The basic premise of anarcho-capitalism is that everything a society needs can be provided on a for-hire basis. There is no State, there is only a free market and the rights of the individuals within it.

And this is how your average voter perceives Libertarianism.

 

[Pseudopod]

Schools, fire, police (including prisons) and health services should be provided by the state. I also think most kinds of infrastructure should be. Roads, railroads, electric power grid, water, telecom grid should also be provided by the state. Private companies should of course be free to use all of this infrastructure, and build their own if they think they can do it better.

I think we're at a point where decent Internet access should be considered essential infrastructure now. Commercial services that utilise the Internet are everywhere, and securing good access for most people will benefit these businesses, just like good roads and rails benefit all businesses that distribute their goods and services physically.

Edit
On the point of airlines, I think it's fine for the state to own airports, like they own roads and rails, but commercial airlines could be in charge of the actual transport of people and goods, just like private train companies can use state owned railways.

 

[Keef]

And this is how your average voter perceives Libertarianism.

It seems that way. I watched V for Vendetta last night because, I mean, what else would I watch, and I can tell you with certainty that the reason is fear. So many people are scared of not being told what to do it is pathetic.

As a side note, I'm usually in tears for about 80% of that movie. It struck a chord the first time I saw it but it's gotten progressively more surreal each time.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Nothing. As an anarcho-syndacalist I believe the State should not exist; I therefore voted accordingly, only checking the "Other" box.

However, if we refer to collective, rather than State ownership, then... Yes.

 

[Keef]

Nothing. As an anarcho-syndacalist I believe the State should not exist; I therefore voted accordingly, only checking the "Other" box.

However, if we refer to collective, rather than State ownership, then... Yes.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a means, not an end. A better description of your belief would simply be communism.