Friday, December 3, 2010

Privatization and Small Government: What Connection?

What does the corporatist Republican Party actually mean when it says less government like it keeps repeating like a mantra? I took a moment to ruminate on that statement and what I found out, which you can also discover, if you take a moment to think about it, is this.

Everyday, at every opportunity they get, the Republicans always advise that the only way to go is to shrink government. Their most favorite quote, as handed down to them by their mascot, Ronald Reagan, is " government is the problem and not the solution." That quote is really the rallying cry of the upper class in the greatest class warfare that this country has ever seen. That quote, ably and masterfully delivered by a master salesman, has been the fall back piece of ready made deception for the Republicans ever since then.

Now, to examine what less government means, we must first remember that what we operate is a democratic government, or democracy. Democracy is defined as a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected representatives under a free electoral system. What this means is that government, in our case, means you and I, we the people.

Then consider the only alternative they give every time they suggest the government gets its hands off anything. Privatize. So, what does it mean to privatize? What is privatization? Privatization means to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise. It is to transfer ( the production of goods or services) from the public sector of an economy into private hands, ownership or operation.

When you consider the above two definitions, you will realize that what they are really saying, when they clamor for privatization, is for us, the government, to hand everything over to them, the big businesses and corporations, because we the people cannot handle our business. They are trying to make us believe that they love us more than we love ourselves and are the only ones who can manage our affairs. What they are saying is "trust us - even though you have no way to hold us responsible if we mess up - with your affairs instead of yourselves.

Well, that will be something to consider if we have not all been witnesses to the efficiencies, or lack, of the private sector over the years. We have all been witnesses to the many recessions and depressions that private ownership of the production of goods and services has thrown us into, from time to time, only for us, the government, to bail them out. Imagine what will happen if we hand everything over to these individuals and they mess up again, like we know they always do. Many of us are still licking our wounds from the last private sector crash owing to our 401ks that were thrown into it.

It is a very huge risk for us to take considering the places and things they are targeting for this privatization. Starting from Social Security to medicare and medicaid, these are very important and crucial safety nets that we put in place because we understand that as people, there always comes a time when we become too weak to work, maybe because of old age, or illness. Those will just be for starters if they had their way, the Republican Party. They have shown that nothing will be left in the hands of the people (the government) if they had their way.

Imagine a situation where all our security apparatus are privatized; the army, the police, the FBI and the CIA are all privatized and run by private individuals who are not accountable to anyone but their share holders. If you think I'm being dramatic consider that most of the security needs of our diplomats in places Iraq and Afghanistan are being provided by private contractors. Who are these private contractors if not private armies who will be ready to take over control of our armed forces in event of  privatization.

How about finally hiring a CEO type of person to run what remains of our government where he/she is only answerable to the share holders of which ever corporation gets the contract. Sounds far fetched doesn't it? We can keep it that way, or not, depending on what encouragement or otherwise we give the party of corporations because, make no mistakes about this, they will do this if they can find a way.


  1. First of all, I love the content on your site. It is very interesting and I would have bookmarked it if not for the annoying advertizements. Twice I launched into them accidentally. I am not sure if they are generating revenue for you, but I might suggest waiting to monetize the site until you have a really large and forgiving following.

    I think you would really like this article, as you and that blogger seem to be heading in the same directions, even if you are taking different paths.

    All you people are starting to depress me with all this talk, but it is very interesting.

  2. Wow, I love it when people use their opinion instead of facts.

    Obviously so many people share your opinions as you wrote this 4 months ago and there is only one comment.

    Never would any conservative or Republican want our national defense or social security (or whatever other absurd example you used) to be controlled by a huge monopolistic enterprise. If they wanted that there would be bills upon bills enrolled in the national legislature to do so....but there never has been. After all it is a NATIONAL defense system and should be controlled as such.

    Actually, the Republicans LOVE a big national defense as it contracts out to PRIVATE companies for equipment. So, there ya go on that point.

    You also need to look into the true meaning of a smaller government. Republicans want a small government so it is not easy for the government to chip away at our personal liberties and freedoms. Larger government would make it much easier for the government to control things such as: trade, commerce, rights, ect.

    Everyone loves to rave about how we were given this perfect system of Government. Well, in the beginning we were individual states bound by similar ideals. Never once was it suggested that they would band together so then can succeed power to a large national government.

    Before pointing the finger at the ideals of a small national government, maybe you should look into the drawbacks and evils of a large national government.

    You can message me back at @BWillionaire on Twitter.