> that use institutions and public resources into either weapons or sources of self-enrichment
I think this is not a good example. Look at the situation right now with the military-industrial complex in the USA, or the lobbying problem. The independent courts and NGOs are muted or are not very effective.
The problem is that many corporations were allowed to amass unimaginable wealth through loopholes and corruption and they can now use that money to keep themselves above the law and also teasing subsequent administrations with censorship of opposing views. This situation is going to be impossible to resolve, as people will be manipulated to not vote for an option that will dissolve these corporations or significantly curb their influence (and make them pay back taxes).
> isn’t proof that authoritarian central planning isn’t worse
All advanced economies in the world today are mixed economies. One can point USA or China as two success stories (in their own way) and argue for years about what is best.
> It’s a business owned by the People’s Army of Vietnam.
I do not know anything about Vietel and how they will operate. Would the population be served better if it was privatized? Because I can point plenty of failures of the so called "free market capitalism" that is so perfect that never exists if it fails, as proponents of communism do with "communist" countries.
Would Swiss be better serviced with private trains like in the UK? Would the UK citizens would be better serviced with private healthcare like in the US?
Well, my comment was less about Vietel being private, since it’s neither, it’s owned by well connected people in the government. My comment was more about the opportunity for corruption. At least if a company I private there is (or can be) a separation in decision making which reduces the risk of people lining their own pockets with someone else’s money.
I think it is a good example. Corruption and acquisition of power into the hands of a few is the result of pretty much any system. One can still acknowledge, however, that some approaches lead to this result much faster.
> One can still acknowledge, however, that some approaches lead to this result much faster.
Agree, but there is plenty of nuance on it. A vocal proportion of HN likes to throw around some blanket statements about state institutions, tax, and societal issues... that are questionable at best.
I think this is not a good example. Look at the situation right now with the military-industrial complex in the USA, or the lobbying problem. The independent courts and NGOs are muted or are not very effective.