Published today in Libertarian Papers:
1. “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization”
Abstract: In this paper, first, I want to clarify the nature and function of private property. Second, I want to clarify the distinction between “common” goods and property and “public” goods and property, and explain the construction error inherent in the institution of public goods and property. Third, I want to explain the rationale and principle of privatization.
Comments on this entry are closed.
I had the opportunity to read this article. At first I considered (and even started) writing a serious critique of it, but – with no exaggeration – it became clear that to do so adequately might have been longer than the paper itself. In some cases, it would almost have to be line-for-line deconstruction.
I must be quite candid – it was perhaps the shoddiest piece of scholarship by a professional I’ve ever read. It has nothing to do with your conclusions, per se, but rather your apparent lack of understanding about basic concepts such as norms, conflict and even to some degree property, coupled with egregious logical and circular errors and internal inconsistencies. This could be forgiven as mere sloppiness; but add the series of straw-man thought experiments, quantum conceptual leaps, disjunctive syllogisms and premises masquerading as conclusions – that smacks of intellectual dishonesty. In almost Orwellian fashion you’ve managed to write much quite cleverly, while explicating virtually nothing.
If you deem, for whatever moral, self-interested or other personal reason, that the greatest threat to individual liberty and the world in general is that someone might be forced to pay for something they don’t want (or think they don’t want, until they need it), and that the only conceivable way this horrible tragedy could ever occur is that some form of public ownership exists somewhere, then you’re welcome to your opinion and your preferences. You could have written that in two or three paragraphs without the veneer of scholarship and “analysis”, or logically derivable conclusions about outcomes in the world. You’ve offered nothing more than opinion here, at best. The paper provides no rationale whatsoever for privatization inter-alia (or a rationale for anything else, for that matter).
Have the courage and honesty to state this as an opinion piece. Otherwise, one might construe that you’re intending to provide theoretical cover for the privileged (an easy inference here), and are thus a charlatan. Only you know your motivation here.
If you’d like I’ll write the critique, but naturally I’ll have to charge you for the service. I’ve spent enough time on this already without due compensation. We can negotiate a fee. You know where to reach me.