and government powers' 'center of gravity' ? [LWN.net]

and government powers' 'center of gravity' ?

Posted Jan 21, 2004 18:49 UTC (Wed) by libra (guest, #2515)
Parent article: Linux's 'center of gravity' (News.com)

It is interesting to think that through time governments have surrendered lot of their prerogatives to private companies. They have more or less lost control of :
- economy
- energies
- transportations
- education
- information
- healthcare
...
Of course it as brought some goods, but not always. Now by joining OSDL some governments may have the opporunity to take back control of their own information system. I think the move is good, and clever. I wonder if they will be able to do the same on some other topics like science, culture, or even healthcare...

Note that I speak about governments in general, not a particular one, and all do not have the same problems.

(Log in to post comments)

and government powers' 'center of gravity' ?

Posted Jan 21, 2004 20:02 UTC (Wed) by cpeterso (guest, #305) [Link]

but how long until Microsoft or someone uses the WTO power to sue these (foreign?) governments for blocking "fair" competition?

and government powers' 'center of gravity' ?

Posted Jan 28, 2004 20:01 UTC (Wed) by rgoates (subscriber, #3280) [Link]

Why do you assume that any of these areas are the prerogative of government? A government's own working data, yes. But the areas you mention seem to me to be more properly the domain of free citizens.

and government powers' 'center of gravity' ?

Posted Feb 2, 2004 5:49 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

Governments *do* have the power to regulate these areas, and to provide these services.

Public services must be funded in some way, and often it is determined by free citizens that the proper way to fund public services is through general taxation.

If it is logical to have a 'single payer' for services, it is just as logical for a government department to provide a service directly (by employing 'free citizens') as it is for the government to be both the funding and regulatory body over 'free citizens' providing the service (in some other capacity than as government employees).

Various Free Trade Agreements threaten to remove the power of governments to regulate these services in any other way than to ensure a 'free market', in which foreign companies must be allowed to compete. This eliminates the economies inherent in monopoly provision of services, and can together with other diplomatic pressures can prevent governments from providing services directly.

How is it different for 'free citizens' to manage a university or hospital (for instance) as government employees than as some other government-regulated body with government funds? The obvious alternative to government provision of services is for the government to pay a non-citizen (eg. a foreign corporation) to take over the management and provision of public services. In practice this often involves the sale at knockdown prices of public assets -- water catchments, dams, railways, factories, port facilities, school premises -- into foreign private hands. What part of any government's responsibility is it to liquidate tangible fixed assets into foreign currency?

Corporations have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to turn a profit, but no duty at all to 'free citizens' of foreign nations to provide the best service for least social cost.

It is government policy in some countries (France, Britain) to encourage private firms to provide public services precisely so that they are in a position to capitalise on -- ie. parasitise -- the public services of other countries when these 'markets' are 'opened'.