The Democracy of the founding fathers was Greek Democracy, predicated upon a slave society, and restricted to only the elite. This is the society we live in today, even with our reforms towards direct representation. The system is inherently biased towards the election of elites and against the representation of the masses. Hamilton called it “faction” when the working class got together and demanded better conditions, and mechanisms were built in (which still exist to this day) that serve to ensure the continued dominance of the elite over the masses. The suffering of the many is intentional. The opulence of the wealthy is also. This is the intended outcome.
He’s basically agreeing with you.
In a way, I can see that. But, his use of free market ideology reflects a vast gap between our actual messaging. “Free markets” inevitably result in monopolization. It’s not just critical industries, every industry is inevitably drawn towards monopolization under capitalist economics.
We can fight it off temporarily with reforms and regulations, but those too, inevitably will be co-opted by the monopolies and used to their advantage. (And then it’s not a free market…)
The idea of a free market is that there aren't any regulations or laws regarding enterprise, so monopolies would be more difficult to establish because there aren't any legislative or regulatory hurdles that a newcomer has to overcome. If the monopoly still manages to survive despite competition, then the monopoly is earned because the company is obviously still able to maintain a stranglehold on the market despite competitors popping up.
Ignoring the ramifications it'd have on healthcare and food quality, on paper this isn't the worst idea that's ever been had, because while it does allow for monopolies, it also means that companies can't claim patents, copyright, trade secrets, or strangle the competition with regulatory or legislative capture.
In reality it requires an educated consumer that always does their research before buying a thing. That's not realistic as the average consumer wants to be able to just walk into a supermarket, buy some groceries, and walk back out again. Unsurprisingly, no one wants to go through three search engines and a bunch of research papers from their local library to figure out whether or not their frozen waffles contain asbestos.
In practice, the dominant player in the industry can operate at a loss to drive the upstart competition out of business, buy their assets for pennies on the dollar, then jack their prices up again when there are no alternatives. Or, if you don't like that one, choose any of the numerous anti-competitive strategies in use today.
If people collectively saw that behavior and said "We're not buying from you anymore", they could put that company out of business, but that simply isn't realistic when dealing with such a large number of individuals. So it continues to work.
Without regulating anti-competitive behavior, monopolies are inevitable and competing without an initial bankroll capable of operating at a loss for as long or longer than the existing monopoly is impossible.
The idea is cool in theory - that anyone who doesn't like how the current monopoly is operating can simply open their own competing business, be more consumer friendly, and steal the market share - but that's simply not the reality we live in.
What's wrong with a monopoly if people are satisfied with it's service? In Canada, the government has a monopoly on healthcare and generally people don't complain.
By definition, publicly owned services cannot be a monopoly. That's because it's publicly owned. Capitalism and monopoly arise from private ownership.
Your definition doesn't seem to be correct. This article mentions government granted monopolies (i.e hydro) and states monopolies (i.e healthcare).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly
Contrary to what I said earlier, residents of certain provinces have been complaining that the quality of their healthcare has been substandard, and are upset that there are no alternatives available as the law forbids private doctors from even setting up shop there.
That is not public healthcare. That would be like the US only allowing Mayo Clinic to operate. Public healthcare is provided by the government.
that seems kinda revisionist. if i think i have a better way in which to provide healthcare, am i allowed to pursue that alongside others who consent? if “no”, then something has monopolized healthcare — be it a private entity, public, or some combination.
the libertarian refrain is “government is the monopoly on violence”, and that seems broadly true, even if the police force is publicly directed… no?
That’s not a libertarian refrain, just one that they stole from the left. Like the name Libertarian itself, which actually means communist essentially.
bleh. arguing over words and definitions is a stupid waste of time. i shouldn't care what "monopoly" or "libertarian" or any other word means to someone else, i should only care if they embrace the ideas that help us work together.
sure, i'm against private monopolies -- whatever word you want to use to describe it. i think it's accurate that government is that player which is granted the "exclusive use of force considered to be legitimate", even if that's a mouthful.
anyway, i yield the floor for as long as the topic is definitional instead of substantial 👋
Cheers! Thanks for chatting. I’m out too for now. Take care!
I see that mental trap of yours. Without getting into the weeds, I'm a type of anarchist. I don't believe the state should exist in the first place, healthcare belongs to the commons. You're trying to suggest that private healthcare is your "better way", so no, it shouldn't be allowed. As long as the state exists, that argument will be used. Therefore we should eliminate the hierarchy that justifies ownership over the means of production.
was what i understand too, idk i'm too dumb for this site lol