3 ms·
I don't think you're describing authorianism so much as centralized power. Private property does the same thing, it just chooses who has power using a different
by 8note 6y ago
I don't think you're describing authorianism so much as centralized power. Private property does the same thing, it just chooses who has power using a different metric. Somebody with a lot of property can do the same stuff, except where laws prevent them, but it's the laws doing the protecting, not your own property
What you really need to avoid these issues is ways to distribute power. Anti trust, democracy, checks and balances, etc where lots of people to agree
- Aeolun 6y agoIt’s fairly hard to force someone that doesn’t want to to sell in any democracy.
- ivalm 6y agoNo, but you can make that their suppliers break contract, their clients move away, etc. One can force a sale simply by making business untenable. Monopolistic and anti-competitive behaviors can happen without breaching private property laws, this is why government has to also fight anti-competitive behaviors.
- chii 6y agoThe cost of doing this in a democracy is more difficult. The cost of extortion is lower in an authoritarian regime because there are fewer people to bribe.
- konjin 6y agoYet somehow the richest man on China hasn't managed to do that. The systems are not equivalent. Trying to say one is better is short sighted and self defeating. The US if it does not deal with monopolies is headed to a worst of all possible worlds.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rorykoehler 6y agoAmazon are pretty good at it.
- ashtonkem 6y agoOnly the modern experience would lead you to believe that. The gilded era is a good example of how forced sales and/or abusive monopolies are not incompatible with democracy at all.
- cynusx 6y agoIt was a democratic process that brought the anti-trust cases and established competition rules. Democracies are not perfect and are always evolving