<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Showtime at the Smithsonian:  The opposite of privatization?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.samizdata.net/2006/05/showtime-at-the/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.samizdata.net/2006/05/showtime-at-the/</link>
	<description>A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspective</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:43:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: bach</title>
		<link>http://www.samizdata.net/2006/05/showtime-at-the/#comment-115212</link>
		<dc:creator>bach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 07:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://192.168.200.139/?p=8947#comment-115212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the idea for this scheme is aimed more at de facto censorship and revisionist history than making money.  In the past, several other quasi-governemnt organizations tried similar moves, and got shot down.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the idea for this scheme is aimed more at de facto censorship and revisionist history than making money.  In the past, several other quasi-governemnt organizations tried similar moves, and got shot down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Hogarth</title>
		<link>http://www.samizdata.net/2006/05/showtime-at-the/#comment-115211</link>
		<dc:creator>Susan Hogarth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 21:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://192.168.200.139/?p=8947#comment-115211</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Privatization &lt;em&gt;ought &lt;/em&gt;to have a bad name - it is in most case, like most political concept-words, the exact opposite of the thing the word usually represents (witness &#039;patriot act&#039; and &#039;welfare&#039; and &#039;free trade agreements&#039;, and &#039;deregulation&#039; and on and on and on...). The whole &#039;pritivization&#039; scam int he US at least is exactly that - a scam intended to hoodwink the casual observer of politics (in other words, the voters). Unfortunately, too many thinktanks in the US fall for this sort of shell game, accepting the name as a substitute for the reality. All it teaches is that &#039;pritivization&#039; means less freedom (because of course it has nothing to do with private property), and &#039;deregulation&#039; means higher prices (because of course it&#039;s just re-regulation). I wish to heaven that politically savy people would catch on and reject these government shufflings outright.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Privatization <em>ought </em>to have a bad name &#8211; it is in most case, like most political concept-words, the exact opposite of the thing the word usually represents (witness &#8216;patriot act&#8217; and &#8216;welfare&#8217; and &#8216;free trade agreements&#8217;, and &#8216;deregulation&#8217; and on and on and on&#8230;). The whole &#8216;pritivization&#8217; scam int he US at least is exactly that &#8211; a scam intended to hoodwink the casual observer of politics (in other words, the voters). Unfortunately, too many thinktanks in the US fall for this sort of shell game, accepting the name as a substitute for the reality. All it teaches is that &#8216;pritivization&#8217; means less freedom (because of course it has nothing to do with private property), and &#8216;deregulation&#8217; means higher prices (because of course it&#8217;s just re-regulation). I wish to heaven that politically savy people would catch on and reject these government shufflings outright.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
