"Selling government businesses is commonly thought to generate additional cash revenue for general spending." The rationale for privatizing an asset is that it will be managed better in private hands than in government hands, so the sales price will be greater than the discounted cash flow to the government. The most reasonable thing to do with capital income would be to pay down government debt. [I see from the rest of the post that you think the reasonableness of this or something equivalent needs to be argued, so more power to you. :)]
The specific example, however raises a different issue. A provincial title office sounds like a monopoly. Selling a government monopoly to a private investor who may take fuller advantage of monopoly pricing might mean that some of the sales price would not come from greater efficiency of management. The standard neo-liberal economic prescription is to eliminate the monopoly when privatizing and would be feasible for the titling function.
"Selling government businesses is commonly thought to generate additional cash revenue for general spending." The rationale for privatizing an asset is that it will be managed better in private hands than in government hands, so the sales price will be greater than the discounted cash flow to the government. The most reasonable thing to do with capital income would be to pay down government debt. [I see from the rest of the post that you think the reasonableness of this or something equivalent needs to be argued, so more power to you. :)]
The specific example, however raises a different issue. A provincial title office sounds like a monopoly. Selling a government monopoly to a private investor who may take fuller advantage of monopoly pricing might mean that some of the sales price would not come from greater efficiency of management. The standard neo-liberal economic prescription is to eliminate the monopoly when privatizing and would be feasible for the titling function.