It's not a sin to sell assets.
Business all round the world buy, sell and trade asset classes continually.
Selling a non performing asset too costly to fix up or refurbish, is often just good business or practical common sense.
Take railways, we have for decades failed to properly upgrade or maintain many lines, with the only option, tear up the lines and sell the steel/rolling stock as scrap.
Even so, very short sighted, given the money we are then obliged to spend on roads, due to the grid lock caused, by removing the most cost effective form of overland transport.
Albeit, we see the Greek Govt hanging on to an antiquated rail line, with a huge staff required just to maintain the line and museum pieces, rolling stock.
They employ more staff than fee paying passengers!
If they were to mothball the lines, it would cost them far less, to simply put all their rail passengers into taxis, for free.
However, no competent manager would sell well performing assets, providing large, life blood, multi billion dollar cash flows.
Simply put, if these are turned into cash at virtual fire sales, the business community will bid accordingly, and pay far less than premium prices!
And then, the former essential cash flows, must be replaced with taxes!
And the customer base often is obliged to pay far more for an essential service, in order to service the borrowings of the private buyer?
A lose/lose outcome, for the former owners!
Only the seriously incompetent would choose that course of action?
A good if cash strapped manager, remains free to raise capital against well performed assets!
And Govt can borrow for far less than private entities.
A well performed asset, will pay down any reasonable borrowing over time, regardless who owns it.
The problem with Govts, is the brainwashing mantra they program themselves with, and their obsession to buy votes! Rather than require our better off, and the indolent, to simply tighten their belts/work harder, while we/they set up the economy, for a far better future, for all.
Rhrosty.

There is a world of difference between selling off a white elephant (rail) and selling off a cash cow (CommBank, Telstra).
The problem of selling off schools is one of 'location,location...'
Buying land in the same area and building new facilities would probably cost more than refurbishing the existing facilities.
What is required is politicians putting their egos in their pockets and just looking around at what works. If Finland has the most effective (best) school system in the world, why don't we do that?
Probably because the teacher's union is one of the last unions to actually work for it's members, rather than it's boss.

Sin or not, it's a crime to sell something that doesn't belong to you.

Privatisation is little more than the theft of public assets intended to profit a minority. I can think of no privatised asset that eventually resulted in better service or lower prices to the public.

Everald Compton asks "Is it a sin to sell a government asset?" (4 April 2013). The answer would depend on your political views. In terms of finance, it will have no effect, as if you sell a $1B asset for $1B, you are just converting a capital to cash, with no gain or loss.

Compton writes: "For most of the time since the arrival of the First Fleet, the establishment and management of public facilities and infrastructure were the unquestioned province of governments."

That is not true, as some of the ships of the first fleet itself were from the private sector, contracted to the government. As an example, the First Fleet Store Ship "Fishburn" was owned by Leighton Co. This spirit of private enterprise in service of the community is commemorated by the "Fishburners" start-up space in Sydney, which I have a talk at a few weeks ago: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2013/03/fishburners-startup-workspace-in-sydney.html