8 ms·
> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently aller
by rland 6y ago
> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently allergic to concentrated power — monopoly in the populist sense, if not the legal one.
> Hatred of monopoly is one of the oldest American political habits and like most profound traditions
In what country does the author live?
Americans are so used to concentrated power that they don't bat an eye when they need to pay $100/mo for DSL, $2500 for an ambulance ride, or 1000%+ retail cost on lifesaving medication. Or when their boss (usually acting in the capacity of a multi billion dollar conglomerate) insists they pee into a cup or be constantly tracked and spied on in their workplace. Or when a single company siphons 100+ basis points off their tax payment (Lockheed, military budget). Or when we allow a handful of private companies to put human beings into prison. Or when five companies own nearly all television output. Or when three companies decide arbitrarily whether we can participate in the financial system (credit ratings). Or when 2% of every single transaction goes to one of two companies (Visa or MasterCard). Or when billions of dollars are spent each election cycle by only a handful of players. Or when a handful of individual bankers destroy the entire country's pensions and retirement funds, and are rewarded millions of dollars for it. To Americans, ceding power to a entity controlled by a half dozen stupendously wealthy shareholders is as natural as breathing.
Or, yes, when two companies (for most, just one company) control the flow of every single bit of information we see and hear online (Facebook or Google). Our allergy to concentrated power is the same one that a patient dying of AIDS would have against influenza. Though, let's be fair: HIV is a pre-existing condition.
This lawsuit probably sputter, though, because it doesn't adhere to the working legal definition of monopoly. Which itself suffers from the same blindness to power shared by the super-majority of Americans.
New laws for a new era? Look at who is on the judiciary. Look who is writing laws. Look at -- oh who am I kidding. We have made our choice the past few decades, and we are making our choice now.
- thayne 6y agoI think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for anyone that is incentivized to change the status quo.
- sudosysgen 6y agoI'm just grappling with the question. How can we call this democracy if most Americans want many extremely important things for decades and they don't happen? Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power?
- pak9rabid 6y agoSure, but when you basically have to be a millionaire to run for high-level political offices that could actually change things like this, you get a limited selection of people, who are likely going to fight to preserve the status-quo of continuing to make themselves and their friends rich.
- sudosysgen 6y agoI guess my point is that democracy isn't really a social structure, but an emergent attribute of social structures where power is distributed widely. If one would accept this description, and I think that it's appropriate from a literal reading of democracy, then wouldn't the structure you're describing where you can only have power if you're a millionaire and you are incentivized not to use it to express the power of the many, lack the emergent attribute of being democratic?
- Jgrubb 6y agoI just really want to be the first to say "it's a republic, not a democracy!" because nobody can punch me while I'm quarantined.
- NationalPark 6y agoRepublics are a subset of democracy by the definitions the people original using those terms went by, that's why people punch you when you say this. Personally I think that's overkill, I prefer to issue backhanded anonymous admonitions via HN comment.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bastardoperator 6y agoDon't bat an eye? Healthcare has been the largest debate in this country for the last 8 years.
- dimitrios1 6y agoYes. Change is slow. Also it's not like those old farts in the congressional seats lift their pens to write laws. They have a team of policy wonks that do that for them. They just present it in the respective chambers to play along with the charade. If you email your senator directly, it's going to be a staffer that fields the email, addresses your concerns, types up a response, and signs the senator's name in the signature. Anyone who has lived on the Hill for any amount of time know what really makes this country churn, and it isn't the public faces.
- munk-a 6y agoYea - but the majority of Americans want a policy like what Sanders was offering (Medicare for All) and neither major political party is on board with it - that's sort of par for the course of how US policy decisions look like - generally the US has gone with policies that don't actually gain majority support instead favoring the will of special interest groups.
- jhawk28 6y agoWhy do you think the majority of Americans want Sanders' policy? If neither major party are onboard with medicare for all, then that would be a strong indication that the majority of Americans do NOT want what he is offering.
- dcarmo 6y agoWell in a country where company lobbying is legal, it's very debatable if political parties are really defending the interests of people.
- mthoms 6y agoA majority do seem to support the general idea of "Medicare For All". https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-m... https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/ https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer...
- belinder 6y agoSo what can we do about it?
- dudul 6y agoIn what country do you live? ISP monopolies and dysfunctional health care system are discussed constantly. Maybe it just means the people don't have the power they think they do to change things and influence policies.
- tboyd47 6y agoI totally agree. It's as if the author got his view of Americans from reading Alexander de Tocqueville.
- SkyPuncher 6y agoPerhaps me and you interact with non-overlapping communities, but I've seen many of those things discussed as concerns.
- galimaufry 6y ago> In what country does the author live? Singapore, for what it's worth.
- bwilliams18 6y agoTaiwan.
- Aunche 6y agoEven ignoring the mischaractizations in this comment, the difference is the other problems you mentioned can't be solved by a few mouse clicks or few phone taps.
- hknapp 6y agoGo onto a conservative forum and you will see people happy that this is happening. Do the same on a liberal forum and you will see the same.
- virgil_disgr4ce 6y agoHN is both and I see the opposite
- punnerud 6y agoIn Norway I pay $10/mo for DSL (300/300Mb/s), ambulance ride is free, don't pay for lifesaving medication. My bos is not allowed to request a drug test, only if this is collectively agreed upon because you as an employee is not in a position to deny. Prisons are not publicly owned. Four companies own a lot of television output, but a fifth is governmently owned, independent and not allowed to be politically biased. You can opt out of credit rating and entitled to get all information gathered on you, and how the calculation is done. 0% of my transactions done within Norway goes to Visa og MasterCard, because the banks have build a system to identify the card to skip the fee (BankAxept). Political ads is not legal on TV, and there is a lot of regulations on the ones that is legal. The retirement funds can freely be transferred between banks to increase competition and your return. To avoid too much wealth or power to group into a handfull of individuals; all the income information and stock positions is made public every year.
- slivanes 6y agoSounds amazing, and I personally would enjoy all that even with the high cost of living and taxes (which you failed to mention) that naturally goes with that. A significant portion of American's would find this too close to socialism and with too much government involvement for their tastes, even though they would be far better off with these perks. It's depressing how much worse off they would rather be than to have these regulations and government controlled benefits.
- pwinnski 6y agoA "strain of political thought" does not mean that this view is the center of mainstream thought. Quite the opposite. I know people on both far-left and far-right who are just as Thompson describes: upset about any concentration of power, whether political, commercial, or religious. Does that mean they refuse to buy internet service or take medicine? The connection you draw seems nonsensical. I, personally, loathe concentrated power. I, personally, pay an egregious sum of money for a half-terabit internet connection. That price, and my lack of options, is one symptom of the very issue at hand! Since I alone am unable to change the status quo, I pay what is required of me and grumble about it using that very service. You describe the status quo as evidence that not one single person fits the description, then go on to demonstrate that you yourself seem to fit the description. As far as hatred of monopoly being a long trend in America, the original birth of this country had avoiding aying tea in Boston Harbor to setting up three distinct branches of government, the rejection of monopoly and concentrated power was, as Thompson reminds us, a habit and tradition.
- ehsankia 6y agoMost of your non-internet examples are fairly accurate, but > control the flow of every single bit of information we see and hear online That has to be a gross hyperbole, right? Realistically I highly doubt it even comes close to 50%