3 ms·
How about "none"? The state is, by definition, a monopoly, with all the usual ill effects upon the "customers". We see these ill effects all the time, from the
by mmirate 8y ago
How about "none"? The state is, by definition, a monopoly, with all the usual ill effects upon the "customers". We see these ill effects all the time, from the big corporations that the state helps to prop-up against their inherent diseconomies of scale. Yet magically the state is excluded from the sorts of criticisms that are daily leveled (rightfully so) at Facebook, Microsoft, etc.
- detcader 8y agoIt is weird how there's no criticism or activism against the US government. Edward Snowden and Barrett Brown are Russian psyoperatives, you see, along with Glenn Greenwald and the Intercept and the New York Press Club Awards For Journalism they won, and
- mmirate 8y agoIt's not just about privacy and the Fourth Amendment; I'll admit that my examples were limited, but there aren't many unambiguous non-localized monopolists outside the tech industry. It's more generally the problem that there can only be one single federal policy, and one single territorial policy per territory; and that therefore, any disagreements of policy can only be resolved by imposition of tyranny over one group by the other. Setting aside the inherent evil of tyranny, it is also readily observable that anyone with sufficient time and resources can gain a tyrannical majority (either in elections or in the legislative bodies themselves) and that this prize is so valuable that there is no system by which corruption can be prevented. Ergo, the state is inefficient at best, and evil at worst.