Contrary to what some liberist scholars say, equalize private company management with that of a country is a "nonsense".
In a private company, executive managers have full ownership of assets, as well as on contract with suppliers and employers work: they can fire employers or sell assets -even declare bankruptcy- all with one goal only: make money.
No matter in wixh way, with who (or without who) employees, anything is useful to win the free market race, wich rules are written by the State, that use this rule to combine private initiative with social purpose of welfare and growing (in wellness, economy and cutural way) of society, that his Statual milestone.
To do this legislative power and government use obviously laws, regulaments and administrative powers.
All of this, there will never tire of emphasizing, is made by delegates to the representatives; so that they become the guardians of social welfare, not his demiurge or "dues ex machina" as some apologetic literature describes corporate managers.
The duty of public administration is protect society and country goods, their aim is the welfare of citizens and
their task is limited in time; it is evident that they can not mortgage future choices of the country and have no mandate for structural changes.
That's why leaders can not dispose as they will of the resources that belong to the community, first of all water: for example, cannot alienate to private corporates, or inhibit access to someone (even if they do not pay, in any cause a country have to provied in each case a basic access, at least).
This is because resources (differently for their current use) do not belong to the single political majorities, because are as the air for a body. If we use this metaphore, consequently giuridical elaboration as "free market" or "companies" are as clothes : without clothes you can survive, for certain time; without air you die almost immediatly. So by the common definition of the State (population-territory-sovereignty) follows the close link between those who live in a place and the resources thereof, that are property of no one, even of the community, but of wich everyone have the right to use these.
For this reason is unacceptable and immoral even to think that a government can privatize the water and that a community, perhaps rich in water, must pay to use it. Is possible even to imagine a city without fountains to drink? and what about the people cannnot wash themselves because cannot pay the bill? where this sscenary becomes real is obcious that there is a steal to some people of the essential country goods in favour of other people or to free market. And what about the scams and the speculations that increasingly characterize the deregulation (as happened with electricity in California at "Enron time")?
Those who objected said that increasing prices will help to rationalize consumption. It 's the stale, old rhetoric of the "rational consumer", which clashes with the reality of continuous abuse of dominant market position in utilities market, and that those who keep the water could sell it to the better consumer (as for mineral water) with enormous costs to agriculture that will further reverberation on retail prices, increasing the spiral of recession, because the increasing is concentrate in goods with high stiffness and low rate of replacement (water, bread etc.), bringing the economy back of a century, and the quality of life as well.
More, water is not as electricity, that is produced. Water is a natural resource that makes the richness of a community and if a community wanted, could, for example, hand over (not the network, but the content) to someone in exchange for a price that can be used to reduce the bills for citizens, While it is certainly unthinkable that the waternetwork could be given to individuals possibility to deprive those who not pay their water bills of this resources or to increase the price to make more money as we could talk about pens or pencils.
Water is a public good, a human right; is the essence of life of individuals. But Water is also the sign of community cohesion (even in the bible water was a right in any water well). Remove public controlled water means transform the State from a paritetic communic into "a guardian" of greed of the few, or many, hiding behind a screen of human creations such as businesses, free markets, the budget, while the State, the States, as well as people there are because there is water, not vice versa.
That's why water, such as forests or seas (or beaches) may not be available to governments that must preserve and regulate its use, not to upset them by taking away the role of brick on which they rest their States
No comments:
Post a Comment