- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Why should banks be public property?

Posted by: R. Jenkins ( USA ) on April 13, 1999 at 11:17:48:

In Reply to: The 'Crimes' of the Left, or: Why Stalin&Mao are not posted by Nikhil Jaikumar on April 12, 1999 at 18:57:00:

: The theft contention is easily refuted. How can you steal from people who don't deserve what they own. generally, properties that ahve been nationalized by leftist govrenments were either things taht clearly ought to be public property (e.g. mines, banks) or factories and farms where the woners were not producing anything of value anyway. As has been stated before, a capitalist who merely contributes money towards the production of goods is relaly contributing nothing of value towards production, and is not nentitled to teh fruits of other people's production. A good should belong to those who produce it, adn public goods should belong to teh public. That ,means that workers and farmers, not bosses or owners, should control factories and farms. nationalizing the means of produvction, is not tehft, but rather it is restoring these items to tehir rightful owners. Capitalsits taking a share of the profits, now taht's theft. Returning property to its rightful owners is teh very opposite of theft.

OK, fine, let the factory workers and farmers run it. But don't come crying to the planners when you don't get any food or products. The people that own places worked very hard to get them, and the government stealing it and dividing it up IS theft. Why should banks be public property? Can't someone working for a profit give you a better interest rate for your savings than the government can? And mines, the people that are mining it for profit will mine it well, as if they don't they will not survive. However, when the government is mining, they don't depend on that mine, thus doing a poor job.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup