On Government Gambling and Obama’s Corporatism
- From my Formspring account. I was asked the following question: “What can you say about PCSO? Is it legal for the government to maintain a lottery for the sake of raising funds for charity? Should it be privatized or completely abolished?”
I believe PCSO must either be abolished or privatized. The government should have no monopoly on gambling or any venture or undertaking. The government should allow anyone to run or manage lottery business or gambling facility.
“Is it legal for the government to maintain a lottery for the sake of raising funds for charity?”
It’s already legal under the current setup. The question is, is it proper for the government to have a monopoly on gambling? NO! I don’t think PCSO means charity or whatever. I believe more money went to the deep pockets of its officials and other high-ranking politicians, and that more money were used by the executive branch for political and self-preservation purposes.
There would have been more charity works had the government privatized gambling. The solution is privatization of not only PCSO and other gambling facilities, but also other GOCCs like NAPOCOR, NFA, NAWASA, MWSS, PGH, UP and other SUCs, CCP, among others.
Question: “I would like to know your take on the National Statistics Office. Do you think it’s needed to be privatized? In a laissez-faire capitalist state, who would be the agency that would provide as the storage for the birth certificate of the citizens?”
It should be privatized. This function (storage for birth certificates, permits, licenses, etc.) could be given to private entities who must qualify in a bidding process. Please check my similar reply here.
I believe corporatism is just another species of Big Government politics. It’s synonymous to fascism and cronyism. Yes, Ron Paul is right in his assessment that Obama is a “bad faith” implementer of Corporatism in America. He’s got his own cronies and unions. I discussed the concept of corporatism here.
That’s non sequitor. It does not follow. Corporatism is a form of collectivism or statism. Let me tell you that Karl Marx didn’t invent socialism. He merely conceptualized his Marxist socialism. There are degrees of statism or collectivism. You may call a society in which all the modes or means of production are controlled by the state “socialism”. Hitler’s National Socialism excessively controlled private property. That’s a good example of corporatism. By definition, Obama remains a socialist or statist. He believes in redistribution of wealth and government-controlled means of production.
It’s not either-or. Your logic here is: since Obama is now a Corporatist, then he’s no longer a socialist. You’re darn wrong. Corporatism is next to full-pledged socialism. It may not be a form of socialism, according to the Marxist socialism, but it’s next to socialism. The only question here is, how would the government control and regulate property rights? That’s the most important question here.
The battle here is INDIVIDUALISM versus COLLECTIVISM. It’s CAPITALISM versus ALL FORMS OF STATISM. If you understood this concept, you wouldn’t be asking: “Having said that Obama is a Corporatist, you no longer believe he’s a socialist.” He is!