Government = Monopoly

[LouderVol]

Monopoly:the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Generally monopolies are considered bad.

Our government is becoming more and more of a monopoly. Healthcare being the biggest current push. But you are also seeing it with various First and Second Amendment issues, with the government being pushed as the sole providers of those rights instead of those rights being held by the public.

With that laid out what are people's thoughts? Are you worried about the government as a monopoly, or do you trust it? Do we keep expanding it?

How will the government monopoly be different from other monopolies?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Well this monopoly can sieze all your property and kill you. There is that difference

Our government (the entity) is fine. The assholes we keep sending to DC to fill positions completely suck.

We gotta find a way to get better options

No we don’t keep expanding it. We neuter the hell out of it and cut about 50% of its spending.

 

[hog88]

The federal government is already a monopoly.

 

[n_huffhines]

The government has a monopoly on education, courier mail, park services, law enforcement, national defense, the courts, etc.

Sometimes it makes some sense. Sometimes it doesn't at all. Monopolies are not inherently bad. There have been monopolies that transformed the world for the better, but I do agree with the notion that monopolies are generally concerning, especially when they are created through cronyism. When the government is the monopoly, it can be just as devastating and worse.

To be a monopoly, you have to be a provider of a good or service. I wouldn't call government's interference in health care a "monopoly". I guess you would say they have a monopoly on insurance for the elderly, but for the most part, they're just regulating and subsidizing the industry to death.

 

[loggervol]

2 party system...

Right now we can only pick the less of the 2 evils. And, a third party vote is just a throw away vote.

 

[LouderVol]

The government has a monopoly on education, courier mail, park services, law enforcement, national defense, the courts, etc.

Sometimes it makes some sense. Sometimes it doesn't at all. Monopolies are not inherently bad. There have been monopolies that transformed the world for the better, but I do agree with the notion that monopolies are generally concerning, especially when they are created through cronyism. When the government is the monopoly, it can be just as devastating and worse.

To be a monopoly, you have to be a provider of a good or service. I wouldn't call government's interference in health care a "monopoly". I guess you would say they have a monopoly on insurance for the elderly, but for the most part, they're just regulating and subsidizing the industry to death.

To healthcare. Isnt that the whole idea behind a single payer? It's a monopoly. And they even talk about how it's a good thing that they will set prices and services to control costs. That sounds like a very dangerous monopoly to me.

Generally I am fine with the government setting the standard for the people (creating laws), but not creating or implementing that standard.

I would think by its nature a government tends to lean towards a monopoly output so to speak. I am fine with them being the monopoly for governance (laws and their punishment), but not on anything approaching day to day.

I would argue they dont have a full monopoly on education with private schools. Especially if vouchers get implemented.

Law enforcement I agree they do and should have. But I think the health, SAFETY, and general welfare should belong to the people. Which is why I am a proponent for the 2A. People have the right to protect themselves. The government, as upheld in federal courts, doesnt have that responsibility to protect people. So if you take away the 2A from people, or limit it, you have created a monopoly on self defense that doesnt have an obligation to provide for self defense of individuals.

We are seeing under Covid the government interpret the 1A even. Who can go to church, who can protest, who can gather. And it's very much a political divide on who can and cant.

I would think for our rights the people always should maintain a majority control on their personal rights. If the government takes that majority. They are a very very dangerous monopoly.

 

[LouderVol]

2 party system...

Right now we can only pick the less of the 2 evils. And, a third party vote is just a throw away vote.

Why do you defend the monopoly? As long as you buy into their arguments you are supporting the current monopoly.

 

[n_huffhines]

To healthcare. Isnt that the whole idea behind a single payer? It's a monopoly. And they even talk about how it's a good thing that they will set prices and services to control costs. That sounds like a very dangerous monopoly to me.

Generally I am fine with the government setting the standard for the people (creating laws), but not creating or implementing that standard.

I would think by its nature a government tends to lean towards a monopoly output so to speak. I am fine with them being the monopoly for governance (laws and their punishment), but not on anything approaching day to day.

I would argue they dont have a full monopoly on education with private schools. Especially if vouchers get implemented.

Law enforcement I agree they do and should have. But I think the health, SAFETY, and general welfare should belong to the people. Which is why I am a proponent for the 2A. People have the right to protect themselves. The government, as upheld in federal courts, doesnt have that responsibility to protect people. So if you take away the 2A from people, or limit it, you have created a monopoly on self defense that doesnt have an obligation to provide for self defense of individuals.

We are seeing under Covid the government interpret the 1A even. Who can go to church, who can protest, who can gather. And it's very much a political divide on who can and cant.

I would think for our rights the people always should maintain a majority control on their personal rights. If the government takes that majority. They are a very very dangerous monopoly.

Yeah if we get a single-payer system, then yes, that is a monopoly as I understand it. I realize now you are talking about what's being proposed, not what is.

I don't understand what you mean by majority control on personal rights.

 

[n_huffhines]

2 party system...

Right now we can only pick the less of the 2 evils. And, a third party vote is just a throw away vote.

Funny you bring that up in this thread

We all know our political system is “broken” — but what if that’s not true? Some say the Republicans and Democrats constitute a wildly successful industry that has colluded to kill off competition, stifle reform, and drive the country apart. So what are you going to do about it?

We'Re GoINg To KeEP VoTInG FoR tHeM

America’s Hidden Duopoly (Ep. 356) - Freakonomics

 

[MontyPython]

Monopoly:the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Generally monopolies are considered bad.

Our government is becoming more and more of a monopoly. Healthcare being the biggest current push. But you are also seeing it with various First and Second Amendment issues, with the government being pushed as the sole providers of those rights instead of those rights being held by the public.

With that laid out what are people's thoughts? Are you worried about the government as a monopoly, or do you trust it? Do we keep expanding it?

How will the government monopoly be different from other monopolies?

The term 'monopoly' applies to commerce-related activities, not governments.

And, yeah, some governmental agencies perform some functions better than private entities, hence their existence.

 

[hog88]

The term 'monopoly' applies to commerce-related activities, not governments.

And, yeah, some governmental agencies perform some functions better than private entities, hence their existence.

I agree but would like to know which agencies you think perform better than the private sector?

 

[n_huffhines]

The term 'monopoly' applies to commerce-related activities, not governments.

And, yeah, some governmental agencies perform some functions better than private entities, hence their existence.

Maybe you only apply it to this narrow field. People that study economics do not.

 

[MontyPython]

I agree but would like to know which agencies you think perform better than the private sector?

NSA, CIA, FBI and Secret Service for starters. One simply can't place state secrets in the hands of private entities for obvious reasons.

Also, all the branches of the military.

 

[MontyPython]

Maybe you only apply it to this narrow field. People that study economics do not.

My master's is in Econ, and I get the argument, and yeah you could apply the term as it concerns being the 'only option available', but I'd argue the term normally is related to commerce.

 

[hog88]

NSA, CIA and FBI for starters. One simply can't place state secrets in the hands of private entities for obvious reasons.

A big part of what the NSA and CIA does is handled by private contractors.

 

[MontyPython]

A big part of what the NSA and CIA does is handled by private contractors.

... with high government clearance. They ain't out digging ditches.

 

[hog88]

... with high government clearance. They ain't out digging ditches.

Still, it's private enterprise doing the work.

 

[1972 Grad]

A big part of what the NSA and CIA does is handled by private contractors.

Like Christopher Steele and Josef Milsud?

 

[LouderVol]

Yeah if we get a single-payer system, then yes, that is a monopoly as I understand it. I realize now you are talking about what's being proposed, not what is.

I don't understand what you mean by majority control on personal rights.

I dont believe our rights are granted,
Or guaranteed by the Consitution or the government. The constitution is a limit on government not the people. All the various "shall not be infringed upons" and similar wordings are directed at the government.

So since they dont stem from the government they are personal rights. I believe in self responsibility. The government is only there to clean up, imo. Many in society are forfeiting, and want others to, forfeit their rights over to the government. I think it's wrong on many levels, especially in the vein of this thread of creating a monopoly on rights. Once we cede control over, the government sets the standards, and almost by default we the people lose rights. Even the ones you personally dont practice are still rights held by you.

A government issued one size fits all typically fits no one. So we should all be interested in maintaining our rights as much as possible. Keeping a majority so to speak. So the government can offer assurances or limited assistance, deal with conflicts, etc, but it should never be the majority holder on our day to day rights.

 

[n_huffhines]

My master's is in Econ, and I get the argument, and yeah you could apply the term as it concerns being the 'only option available', but I'd argue the term normally is related to commerce.

Yeah, people normally talk about companies when they are discussing monopolies, but it's any group controlling the supply of a commodity or service. It could be a charity or even a church.

Actually, the exact definition is "exclusive" control, which is incredibly rare (at least for any sustained time) unless we're talking government involvement. So despite people using it less in relation to government, it probably pertains to government more, semantically speaking.

 

[LouderVol]

The term 'monopoly' applies to commerce-related activities, not governments.

And, yeah, some governmental agencies perform some functions better than private entities, hence their existence.

Commerce related like healthcare?

 

[LouderVol]

My master's is in Econ, and I get the argument, and yeah you could apply the term as it concerns being the 'only option available', but I'd argue the term normally is related to commerce.

It's not just "the only option available" it's the only option allowed. And when you consider its said monopoly doing the allowing it looks really shady.

You can look at local vs state vs federal powers. The feds have been taking away from state and locals for a while.

 

[LouderVol]

Yeah, people normally talk about companies when they are discussing monopolies, but it's any group controlling the supply of a commodity or service. It could be a charity or even a church.

Actually, the exact definition is "exclusive" control, which is incredibly rare (at least for any sustained time) unless we're talking government involvement. So despite people using it less in relation to government, it probably pertains to government more, semantically speaking.

Which is why the base definition of the word is the first line of my OP.

 

[volinbham]

Thread title reminds me of Orange Empire

government = failure

 

[FLVOL_79]

Well this monopoly can sieze all your property and kill you. There is that difference

Our government (the entity) is fine. The assholes we keep sending to DC to fill positions completely suck.

We gotta find a way to get better options

No we don’t keep expanding it. We neuter the hell out of it and cut about 50% of its spending.

I spent 2 hours in a zoom meeting with all the heads of the various FAA lines of business while they discussed their favorite xmas movies......