Private Or Public? De or Regulation?

Paul Craig Roberts, a critic of the Bush Administration, and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration in 1981-82, contributes regularly to Counterpunch.  In his article, dated January 30, ‘Which is Worse? Regulation or Deregulation’  on the website, he briefly explored the topic on regulation and come to the conclusion that it depends on situation.

Using the deregulation of airlines as an example, he cited cheaper advanced tickets as a plus which is however offset by shortcomings such as other passengers having to pay for higher fares. Deregulation has also caused the bottom line to matter so much that it has ‘lowered service, removed meals, and results in periodic bankruptcy, thus forcing the airlines’ creditors to pay for the low fares. Pilots, flight attendants, and aircraft maintenance crews subsidize the lower fares with reductions in salaries and pension benefits.’

His argument is valid but external pressures such as the volatility and competitiveness of international markets, coupled with globalisation and climate change considerations have made the debate on regulation of air travel and the industry more complicated than just one of deregulation or regulation. The answer to all these issues, is likely ‘re-regulation’ which he himself purports at the end of the essay.

It is his argument of socialization vs privatization that provokes more debate. He opined that privatization has gone too far in America and gave the example of private prisons to illustrate how it has gone too far, to the extent that the country ‘has the largest prison population in the world’ even for those convicted of minor crimes such as drug use and ‘hate crimes’.

On this argument, basic services which would directly affect human rights, such as potable water, education, health care, utilities and housing would be better served by a stronger public sector dominance (rather than private interests).

Since human rights are non-negotiable, even the poor or less affluent in a society should have access to these services and not be deprived of them due to their economic situation.

While free market capitalists would be quick to argue that privatization (even of basic services) would lead to productivity increase, cost cutting, less tax demands on citizens, and more efficient allocation of resources, there is often a hidden cost.

For example, in depriving someone from an acceptable standard of health care, society is preventing that same person from contributing to the economy at his best. The same can be argued in providing education. By depriving a person of his education (if he is too poor to study), society is depriving itself from a person who could contribute in the future. Such costs are hidden but nevertheless, should form an important consideration for they affect society well-being.

It has often been argued that the executive or legislative could ‘politicize’ these state sectors by using it as a pawn for holding onto political power. That is however beside the point as there is always the possibility of legislative or executive powers trying to overstep its boundaries. Safeguards such as the judiciary and rule of law can help prevent these basic state providers from being manipulated by the government in power.

The debate on private or public and de or regulation is manifold, based on a spectrum ranging from regulation to de-regulation lying on an axis of socialization to privatization. To be solely concerned on hard economic statistics such as the bottom line or productivity is to miss the larger picture. Humanitarian concern should be a priority when it comes to basic services, especially if it is concerned with any possible human rights violations.

Amnesty (for) American Abductions?

I came across this story from Michael Otterman’s American Torture website which was related to a Times article dated early December last year.

I quote an excerpt, ‘

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

That means that if someone was kidnapped by US security forces (e.g. CIA) in another country and brought to America for criminal charges, its existing national court could rule in favour of the ‘kidnappers’ and conclude that the abduction is legal. The assumption made according to the senior lawyer for the US government predates to the 19th century of bounty hunting.

This preposterous arrogance and (il)legality is astounding. Does the US courts have total jurisdiction on a worldwide basis? What is the purpose of extradition treaties if bounty hunters can be employed professionally to do the dirty work?

But then again, the US government has always been reluctant to adhere to international benchmarks when it comes to human rights laws. Even when Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2000, he did not send the convention to the senate for ratification. When George Bush became the President, he withdrew the signature in 2002, signifying a step back on human rights. The ICC was set up to focus on gross and systematic human rights violations such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Back to the story. Imagine the public outcry and condemnation if a US citizen had been kidnapped and sent to another country facing trial and alleged charges?

I love the ending statement from the lawyer, who said’

The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared…

American exceptionalism at its pure finesse. I am lost for words.