Bvl72

Let’s figure out where this enterprise came from.

First, the state could have collected taxes from citizens, spent less on citizens’ needs than was collected (or borrowed money, or printed new money) — and bought a profitable enterprise. Thus, this results in a misappropriation of funds: money was collected under the pretext of providing services to citizens, but instead was spent on running a business. Legal logic dictates the solution: sell the enterprise, divide the proceeds among the citizens — and henceforth, do not acquire enterprises at the expense of the budget.

Second, the state could have provided the state-owned company with preferences, thanks to which it prospers. For example, the state enterprise fulfills government orders, or trades duty-free, or has preferential loans, or uses insider information, or is simply a monopoly. Thus, we have unfair competition, as a result of which the competitors of the state enterprise receive less profit or even incur losses. Legal logic requires eliminating this conflict of interest and removing the referee from the field of play.

Third, the state could have bought out a loss-making private enterprise in a pre-bankruptcy state, and then the market conditions changed, and that same activity began to yield a profit. In other words, the state took a significant entrepreneurial risk, which in this particular case paid off — but how many cases were there where the purchased loss-making enterprise continued to suck money from the budget, or eventually went bankrupt! Thus, taxpayers are exposed to the risk of serious economic losses without their consent. Legal logic requires coordinating investment policy with shareholders, and if the management of an investment fund behaved this way, it would lead to their removal.

In short, any attempt by the state to engage in entrepreneurial activity one way or another violates the rights of citizens, and therefore consistent libertarian reforms must inevitably include the full privatization of state property.