19 ms·

Government is not a monopoly. There are many governments. Besides sovereign countries there are regional and local divisions. Often also branches with separate

Government is not a monopoly. There are many governments. Besides sovereign countries there are regional and local divisions. Often also branches with separate powers. While not quite the same competition as companies there is certainly competition and checks and balances such that typical monopoly analysis is not really suitable.

vertex-four 6y ago
Of course, for the majority of people, moving country is generally impossible. Borders are a thing.
unishark 6y ago
That kind of alternatives help some. But then by that logic, nothing is a monopoly. Your local utility is considered a protected monopoly according to the law, even if they don't also control prices across the border in some other country. Governments explicitly claim the right to exclude "competitors" from whatever they do choose to define as their jurisdiction. If a state and federal govt disagree (e.g. drug laws) that just means you must adhere to the worst of both alternatives to avoid penalties.
staticautomatic 6y ago
This is exactly wrong. In political theory, the defining characteristic of a government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force (and accordingly on anything over which it exercises that force).
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  But there isn’t one government in most of America. Federal, state, and local governments have overlapping jurisdiction. There are entire bodies of law devoted to resolving this competition. And this competition between agencies changes the law and internal culture of law enforcement organizations. You don’t think the local sheriff will think twice about over stepping if the FBI takes their cases or punished them for over reach? An abstract principle in political theory for the sake of debate isn’t an infallible axiom. Yes the sovereign, as in all the units of government taken as a whole have exclusive rights to violent force, but in practice, most sovereigns subdivide that right in competing bodies to create checks and balances and place the nexus of decision making in the right sphere of influence (some problems need to be addressed at the local level like waste water management, others at the federal level like interstate commerce).
  - staticautomatic 6y ago
    I honestly don't understand what your point is. Whatever government we're talking about has, by definition, a monopoly on the use of force. It's real. It wasn't pulled out of an abstract principle hat by political scientists. Different governments may divvy up or squabble over the scope of their respective monopolies, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject? How can you say there is a monopoly when you could be in county prison, state prison, or federal prison? Those are competing forces subject to different constituencies. My point quite simply is the false dichotomy that is presented that companies are fundamentally better and more innovative because they alone are subject to competition is a false dichotomy. Governments are less affected by competition but it does exist through intergovernmental divisions of power and overlapping jurisdiction. Governments also have a monopoly on granting the right to operate a business. They can and do limit ability to operate (try to be a lawyer with out government regulated credentials). So you’re basically saying when government confers this right to operate on a C Corp that is competition but when it confers the right to a sherif and police force and immigration agency to detain people that’s not competition. Agencies absolutely complete for resources, public praise, and employee recruitment; and they worry that their effectiveness and policies will harm them just the same. Further, this false dichotomy is used to distract from the real important insight that government is uniquely positioned to address problems no company or market force could address. One, of many clear examples is the longer time horizon and risk taking the government can take for basic research. Companies have been able to innovate on top of many government funded projects like the internet, gps, interstate highways, self driving cars (remember those crazy darpa funded competitions with $5M prize for a team that got a Humvee to drive its self in the desert?). No company could invest for decades at network scale like governments can and yet we applaud their innovative ability and demonize governments by ignoring the foundation it provides for innovation in the first place. Silicon Valley itself only exists because nasa brought a ton of scientists to the Bay Area and a critical mass of tech oriented families happened to be in an area. Well guess what their kids ended up being hacker friends in garages building products. Oh and by the way “all the tea in China” is an Interesting quote given that the British East India company, a literal private corporation, was granted a monopoly on the use of force and acted as a quasi government all while being an extremely “innovative” (And horribly brutal/evil company)

vertex-four 6y ago

Of course, for the majority of people, moving country is generally impossible. Borders are a thing.

unishark 6y ago

That kind of alternatives help some. But then by that logic, nothing is a monopoly. Your local utility is considered a protected monopoly according to the law, even if they don't also control prices across the border in some other country. Governments explicitly claim the right to exclude "competitors" from whatever they do choose to define as their jurisdiction. If a state and federal govt disagree (e.g. drug laws) that just means you must adhere to the worst of both alternatives to avoid penalties.

staticautomatic 6y ago

This is exactly wrong. In political theory, the defining characteristic of a government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force (and accordingly on anything over which it exercises that force).

digitaltrees 6y ago
But there isn’t one government in most of America. Federal, state, and local governments have overlapping jurisdiction. There are entire bodies of law devoted to resolving this competition. And this competition between agencies changes the law and internal culture of law enforcement organizations. You don’t think the local sheriff will think twice about over stepping if the FBI takes their cases or punished them for over reach? An abstract principle in political theory for the sake of debate isn’t an infallible axiom. Yes the sovereign, as in all the units of government taken as a whole have exclusive rights to violent force, but in practice, most sovereigns subdivide that right in competing bodies to create checks and balances and place the nexus of decision making in the right sphere of influence (some problems need to be addressed at the local level like waste water management, others at the federal level like interstate commerce).
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  I honestly don't understand what your point is. Whatever government we're talking about has, by definition, a monopoly on the use of force. It's real. It wasn't pulled out of an abstract principle hat by political scientists. Different governments may divvy up or squabble over the scope of their respective monopolies, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject? How can you say there is a monopoly when you could be in county prison, state prison, or federal prison? Those are competing forces subject to different constituencies. My point quite simply is the false dichotomy that is presented that companies are fundamentally better and more innovative because they alone are subject to competition is a false dichotomy. Governments are less affected by competition but it does exist through intergovernmental divisions of power and overlapping jurisdiction. Governments also have a monopoly on granting the right to operate a business. They can and do limit ability to operate (try to be a lawyer with out government regulated credentials). So you’re basically saying when government confers this right to operate on a C Corp that is competition but when it confers the right to a sherif and police force and immigration agency to detain people that’s not competition. Agencies absolutely complete for resources, public praise, and employee recruitment; and they worry that their effectiveness and policies will harm them just the same. Further, this false dichotomy is used to distract from the real important insight that government is uniquely positioned to address problems no company or market force could address. One, of many clear examples is the longer time horizon and risk taking the government can take for basic research. Companies have been able to innovate on top of many government funded projects like the internet, gps, interstate highways, self driving cars (remember those crazy darpa funded competitions with $5M prize for a team that got a Humvee to drive its self in the desert?). No company could invest for decades at network scale like governments can and yet we applaud their innovative ability and demonize governments by ignoring the foundation it provides for innovation in the first place. Silicon Valley itself only exists because nasa brought a ton of scientists to the Bay Area and a critical mass of tech oriented families happened to be in an area. Well guess what their kids ended up being hacker friends in garages building products. Oh and by the way “all the tea in China” is an Interesting quote given that the British East India company, a literal private corporation, was granted a monopoly on the use of force and acted as a quasi government all while being an extremely “innovative” (And horribly brutal/evil company)