When to Socialize and When to Privatize

I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about when certain businesses should be socialized. For example, should AmTrak have been socialized? What about the Postal Service—should that be privatized? There is a lot of debate about these things, especially since Republicans keep saying they want to privatize Social Security, and in Idaho, they have succeeded to a great degree in privatizing Medicaid.

I think there are two criteria, usually dependent on each other, which determine when something should be socialized. A business should be socialized when:

• It would be unethical for the producers not to produce the product.
• It would be unethical for the consumers not to consume the product.

Here's my rationale: When a private company engages in business with a product, there will inevitably be times when it is financially advisable not to distribute the product, or to distribute it incompletely, or to make the product faulty or addicting in some way. All of these things hamper the full transmission or consumption of the product. If it is unethical for the transmission of the product not to occur (the ultimate hampering of transmission of the product), it is, logically, therefore, unethical for the product to be privatized. It should be socialized.

Clearly, this does not cover all businesses. M&Ms should not be socialized. Neither should Technics speakers. There are some gray areas: for example, what about private transportation? Some may argue for socialization, some may argue against it. But partly because of the clear-cut examples of businesses which should not be socialized under my model, I am not a Socialist. It is not necessary for all businesses to be socialized, and, perhaps, it is not desirable for them to be. We all know that healthy competition and the profit motive can lead to innovation. Centralization of wealth to a certain degree can lead to good investments. I, for one, think that the entrepreneur, the essence of Capitalism, is one of the more powerful and often positive forces in our world. So I don't think the control of every business should be transferred from entrepreneurs to committees.

But there are, to be sure, some clear-cut examples of businesses which should be socialized, and, I would contend, most Liberals would agree with these. Health insurance should definitely be socialized. So should Social Security. But in addition to these, there are some positives which many might find surprising. For example, staple food production. By my account, this should be socialized. This conclusion surprised me, and at first it led me to reconsider my criteria—perhaps I had made a mistake. But no, now that I've thought about it, I emphatically agree: staple food production should be socialized. If we socialized food, we would, in one fell swoop, (probably) eliminate diabetes and obesity. If we socialized food, we would end unfair government subsidies of corn. We would also do away with so much exploitation in the third world, and also improve conditions for farmers here in America. No, food production should be socialized.

This doesn't necessarily mean that managerial control be taken out of the hands of the farmers. (I'd bet most farmers feel they're already managed enough by the government!) Rather, it means that the mechanism for providing capital, and the mechanism for distribution, should be at least subcontracted by the government according to the principles of just law.

I think my criteria hold up to much philosophical scrutiny. If I were a justice of the Supreme Court, I would use these criteria. I also think these criteria should also guide public opinion. Use them wisely, grasshopper.