Quote from: myrkul on July 23, 2011, 03:00:15 AM

That's actually what I based my opinion of 'public property should go to those who use it' on. For the most part, when I say subsidized industries, I mean those like the railways, which can't support themselves. For industries like Lockheed-martin, Yes, they did supply weapons to the Gov't. But when you like to make jet planes, who's going to pay you the most to make jet planes?

Are you sure? Yours sounds a lot more like a Van Mises - "just privatize and let the market sort it out since it's such a mess and we can't possibly sort it out any better than that" On the contrary - Rothbard in that article:

Quote

What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the government but also participate in mass murder? What are their credentials to private property? Surely less than zero. As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies, as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation and reversion of their property to the genuine private sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their private property must be respected is to say that the property stolen by the horse thief and the murdered must be respected.

(seems directly counter to your oh well, who else where they going to sell to argument)

Quote

The percentage of its sales coming from napalm is undoubtedly small, so that on a percentage basis the company may not seem very guilty; but napalm is and can only be an instrument of mass murder, and therefore Dow Chemical is heavily up to its neck in being an accessory and hence a co-partner in the mass murder in Vietnam. No percentage of sales, however small, can absolve its guilt.

(seems to argue that companies that are even doing tiny business in things like chemical weapons should be wholly forfeit or subject to massive sanctions under a libertarian property scheme)

Quote

One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the landtheir means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation.

(then he goes on to argue for *shock* reparations to be paid to all descendents of slaves

(He also argues for an intermediate step of, right now, nationalizing all companies that get over 50% of their revenue from the public)