privatisering van de publieke sector

"Combining cultural conservatism and welfare-statism is impossible, and hence, economic nonsense. Welfare-statism—social security in any way, shape or form—breeds moral and cultural decline and degeneration. Thus, if one is indeed concerned about America's moral decay and wants to restore normalcy to society and culture, one must oppose all aspects of the modern social-welfare state. A return to normalcy requires no less than the complete elimination of the present social security system: of unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc.—and thus the near complete dissolution and deconstruction of the current state apparatus and government power."


"In contrast, politicians, parties, and civil servants produce nothing which is sold in markets. No one buys government 'goods' or 'services'. They are produced, and costs are incurred to produce them, but they are not sold and bought. On the one hand, this implies that it is impossible to determine their value and find out whether or not this value justifies their costs. Because no one buys them, no one actually demonstrates that he considers government goods and services worth their costs, and indeed, whether or not anyone attaches any value to them at all. From the viewpoint of economic theory, it is thus entirely illegitimate to assume, as is always done in national income accounting, that government goods and services are worth what it costs to produce them, and then to simply add this value to that of the 'normal', privately produced (bought and sold) goods and services to arrive at gross domestic (or national) product, for instance. It might as well be assumed that government goods and services are worth nothing, or even that they are not "goods" at all but "bads"; hence, that the cost of politicians and the entire civil service should be subtracted from the total value of privately produced goods and services. Indeed, to assume this would be far more justified. For on the other hand, as to its practical implications, the subsidizing of politicians and civil servants amounts to a subsidy to 'produce' with little or no regard for the well-being of one's alleged consumers, and with much or sole regard instead for the well-being of the 'producers', i.e., the politicians and civil servants. Their salaries remain the same, whether their output satisfies consumers or not. Accordingly, as a result of the expansion of 'public' sector employment, there will be increasing laziness, carelessness, incompetence, disservice, maltreatment, waste, and even destruction — and at the same time ever more arrogance, demagoguery, and lies ('we work for the public good')."

prof. economics, hans hermann hoppe: 'the intellectual incoherence of conservatives - democracy: the god that failed', 'down with democracy: democracy: the god that failed'.

ambtenaren zijn zelf uitkeringstrekkers omdat hun gehele productie slechts bekostigd wordt met belastinggeld.. er is geen element van competitie en fluctatie in prijzen die kan dienen als indicatie van vraag en aanbod, tevredenheid of eventuele nood aan een bepaalde dienstverlening. gebrek aan competitie betekent ook gebrekkige en tegelijk duurdere dienst.
economische wetten worden hier compleet genegeerd..

de theorie die vindt dat de private sector moet geholpen worden door de publiekssector is keynesianisme, vooral populair bij linksmensen, van dwm lezers tot sp politici.

however, neoconservatieven en radicaal rechtsen (fascisten of nationaal socialisten of socialistische nationalisten) zijn ook beinvloed door keynesianisme:

"Keynesian economics had much in common with Fascism. A leading Fascist propagandist[17] noted (in a book with a preface by Mussolini):[18]

        "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud."[19]

While liberal in nature, Keynesian economics also had an influence on conservatives - the Laffer curve, a key component of supply-side economics and the basis for the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts, was based on Keynesian concepts. " conservapedia.
zie ook: rothbard, fallacy of the public sector.
alsook: the classical liberal: fascism, keynesianism, socialism.

vanuit economisch oogpunt zijn werklozen, drugdealers minder schadelijk dan iedereen die voor de overheid werkt.

"In the private sector, a firm's productivity is gauged by how much the consumers voluntarily spend on its product. But in the public sector, the government's "productivity" is measured — mirabile dictu — by how much it spends!"

"Far from adding cozily to the private sector, the public sector can only feed off the private sector; it necessarily lives parasitically upon the private economy. But this means that the productive resources of society — far from satisfying the wants of consumers — are now directed, by compulsion, away from these wants and needs"

"In either case, it becomes evident that the "public sector" is actually antiproductive: that it subtracts from, rather than adds to, the private sector of the economy. For the public sector lives by continuous attack on the very criterion that is used to gauge productivity: the voluntary purchases of consumers."

"Any reduction of the public sector, any shift of activities from the public to the private sphere, is a net moral and economic gain."

rothbard, fallacy of the public sector.