Monday, October 28, 2013

Open Source Government and Dirty Language

Open Source Government and Dirty Language

The beginning of the chapter was really interesting to me. I like the idea of people supporting the other side and being able to learn from their experiences and why they agree with what they agree with. Sydney and Barbara Webbs were perfect examples of these. While their ideas seem atrocious, their labor policy was elected by majority. Atrocious may seem like a misused word when I think there was much good stemming from their intentions. I don't agree in socialism having to be purely socialist, and communism purely communist. I believe that society and government as a whole benefits the most by integrating policy and procedure from many different types of governments. An example would  be communism, while I disagree with a lot of their policy, I believe their acknowledgement of women being equal was spot on, especially for the time we're talking about. Another example would be in socialist UK, their restrictions on currency exchange was great for the situation they were in at the time, just being postwar and the dollar sucking them dry. This being said, many different governments need to be an asset to deciding a governments regulations, not strictly going 100% socialist or 100% communist. That is of course if the integration agrees with the people and the countries constitution.

The dangers of going 100% socialist are all to real and were experienced during the labor parties reign in the UK. Communal Ownership is dirty language. Communal Ownership is a highly scripted way of telling the people that things will grow in price and we will reap less benefit than we think we will. Taking private ownership from a market has proven to be one of the worst things you can do for a nation whose focus is on growth. Competition created by private ownership naturally lowers price. We saw it in America with the deregulation of telephone lines and air travel. Prices dropped dramatically, employment in these fields rose dramatically, quality of life for all, rose dramatically. The same thing happened in reverse for commanding heights in the UK. When coal was removed from the private sector and made a government run program, it was costing the country billions of dollars to keep these mines open and the people working. Zero net revenue was being made from "Communal Ownership". In another description of communal ownership, it is taking a company from a prospering private sector to a government run process that will end up costing us a lot of money.

End rant.

No comments:

Post a Comment