Na sua habitual coluna Facts and Commments, e falando do Iraque:
"When iraq gets a new government, one of its first tasks should be turning over the country's oil assets--only Saudi Arabia and Iran have oil reserves greater than Iraq's--to its citizens. The Sunni areas of Iraq have few oil reserves, which is exacerbating already tense ethnic rivalries. Imagine what a calming balm to the country's violent politics it would be if each Iraqi citizen directly owned shares in various Iraqi oil companies. Economist Charles Wolf Jr. of the Hoover Institution has proposed that the Iraqi government privatize its oil assets by turning them over to private companies and give equal shares in each to every Iraqi citizen. Instantly people would own shares worth thousands of dollars, this in a country in which per capita income is currently around $1,000 a year. The government would receive money from taxing corporate profits and dividends. But the fact that people had a direct stake in these companies would prevent the government's going overboard in laying levies on these entities. The Sunnis would no longer feel a grievance because the country's oil is concentrated among the Kurds and Shiites. Their individual cuts of this manifold pie would be equal to those of their neighbors."
Tirando o habitual optimismo (ingenuidade?) sobre a capacidade de um sociedade tribal se transformar numa república multi-religiosa-multi-linguística do tipo Suiça (onde os cantões estão organizados/separados entre Protestantes e Católicos) e sem adoptar os seus princípios validados ao longo de séculos de descentralização extrema (por isso é denominada de "confederaçao" e não de "federação")...pelo menos demonstra (e felizmente já habitual em Forbes) alguma capacidade de radicalismo.
Mas em "How and How not to Desocialized" (1992), Murray N. Rothbard escreve:
Several possible routes have been suggested, but they can be grouped into three basic types. One is egalitarian handouts. Every Soviet or Polish citizen receives in the mail one day an aliquot share of ownership of various previously state-owned properties.(...)
...there are grave philosophical problems with this solution. It would enshrine the principle of government handouts, and egalitarian handouts at that, to undeserving citizens. Thus would an unfortunate principle form the very base of a brand new system of libertarian property rights.
It would be far better to enshrine the venerable homesteading principle at the base of the new desocialized property system. Or, to revive the old Marxist slogan: "all land to the peasants, all factories to the workers!"
This would establish the basic Lockean principle that ownership of owned property is to be acquired by "mixing one's labor with the soil" or with other unowned resources.
Desocialization is a process of depriving the government of its existing "ownership" or control, and devolving it upon private individuals. In a sense, abolishing government ownership of assets puts them immediately and implicitly into an unowned status, out of which previous homesteading can quickly convert them into private ownership. The homestead principle asserts that these assets are to devolve, not upon the general abstract public as in the handout principle, but upon those who have actually worked upon these resources: that is, their respective workers, peasants, and managers. Of course, these rights are to be genuinely private; that is, land to individual peasants, while capital goods or factories go to workers in the form of private, negotiable shares. Ownership is not to be granted to collectives or cooperatives or workers or peasants holistically, which would only bring back the ills of socialism in a decentralized and chaotic syndicalist form.
It should go without saying that these ownership shares, to be truly private property, must be transferable and exchangeable at will by their holders. "
PS:Note-se o argumento anti-marxista contra a hipótese de distribuição de acções pela população: o seu carácter eminentemente igualitário e construtivista. Contrapondo uma solução consistente com o princípio lockeano (o único verdadeiramente fundado no Direito Natural) da aquisição original de propriedade.
Suponho que um exemplo prático mais abrangente e próximo seria por exemplo propor a privatização de todo o ensino público não pela "privatização" tradicional proposta por "so-called" (e auto-denominados) neo-liberais (normalmente por causa da sua habitual conexão e concordância com as propostas genéricamente estatistas da Escola de Chicago), tipo: a venda ao maior preço ou por concurso qualitativo a grupos económicos...mas sim... a privatização a favor dos ....trabalhadores da escola: os professores, etc.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário