I Don’t Approve…

August 30, 2017 Longrider Civil Liberties, General News, misanthropy, Political, Science and Technology 8

…So the state should steal them. For that is what nationalisation is; theft.

While I do use some of these tech giants – Amazon, for example – I can equally ignore them or use alternatives. They are not essential to my life, so their virtual monopoly is inconsequential. There was a time when Microsoft was being viewed with similar opprobrium. However, Apple seems to be occupying that spot of late. Things move on, time change – tout passé, tout cassé, tout lassé and all that. Facebook and Google will one day be eclipsed by something else. In the meantime, so what?

But let’s be clear here; any lefty who uses the word nationalisation is talking about a grab of something that does not belong to them. They are talking about stealing, pure and simple.

8 Comments

  1. “any lefty who uses the word nationalisation is . . . talking about stealing, pure and simple.”

    But it’s for EVERYONE’S benefit . . . . (came echoing from amongst the smoke and mirrors)

  2. Aren’t all these companies American, so how does (UK) nationalisation work?
    There is a good argument for the US to dust off its ‘anti-trust’ legislation and to break up these virtual monopolies.
    Besides these US monopolies appear to be doing all the things that The Guardian would approve of anyway, like removing any opinions that they don’t approve of or products that are ‘sexist’ or not ‘gender-neutral’.
    Ein Volk, Ein Reich.

      • Technically yes, perhaps oligopoly is the right word. However what we do on the internet (always?) involves interaction with others. There is no point in posting stuff on MySpace if all your mates are on Facebook. Want to post a blog or a video? For most the first port of call are Google’s services. Found an alternative? Good luck but suppose Google’s search engine doesn’t ‘find’ it so you are part of the grey if not ‘dark web’. How about escaping Microsoft and going for a tablet? Whoops, Google have Android and the Play Store sewn up.
        The great thing about the internet is the breadth of content and, as long as you can be assured of a platform, you can self-publish. But without a neutral search service you might as well shout in the woods. Is Google neutral? Well try searching for ‘white couples’ and then for ‘black couples’, a ‘neutral’ search engine would return equivalent results wouldn’t it?

        • Technically yes, perhaps oligopoly is the right word.

          Yes, probably better. But these things have a way of sorting themselves out over time. Microsoft no longer has the stranglehold it once did. Fashions come and go. Facebook and Google will be replaced by something else, so I don’t worry about it. I certainly don’t think that the state stepping in is a good thing…

        • Plenty of alternatives to Gulag Google. Duckduckgo, Dogpile, and that’s just two beginning with ‘D’. My kids rarely use Facebook and never Twitter so we hardly notice apart from when the censorious cuck up yet again. As for the state stepping in, right, that’s going to work isn’t it?

          Nationalisation does not have a great track record.

  3. Unless … full-market value is paid in compensation, in which case it’s a legitimate sale.
    OTOH, how likely is this?

    • If the owner does not wish to sell – in which case it is immoral and tantamount to theft. There is nothing legitimate in a sale that is conducted by force.

Comments are closed.