4 ms·

Yes, in the mundane literal sense, they are subject to competition in a way government is not. This is blindingly obvious to anyone whose brain hasn't been rott

Yes, in the mundane literal sense, they are subject to competition in a way government is not. This is blindingly obvious to anyone whose brain hasn't been rotted by extremist populist discourse. We (rightfully) worry about excessive market power when companies are still nowhere close to the degree of monopoly that govt has by design. I constantly make decisions at a moment's notice to patronize stores other than Amazon and Walmart. I don't recall the last time I was able to choose to live a la carte under a specific German or Chilean law. I say all of this neutrally. Government is coercive and monopolistic, because it's the institution that we chose to channel as much of society's coercion as possible. It's why we have nominal democratic control over it: because there's no alternative to it. It's absurd how people too dim to understand this need to shove everything into the framing of "govt has no downsides, the market has no upsides" and warp reality into claims that even famously powerful companies like Amazon are more optional than govt is.

jonahbenton 4y ago
With respect- I know what you mean when you say "government is monopolistic" but with a moment's reflection perhaps you will agree that- certainly in the US- it is an incorrect statement. There is the abstraction called "government" which in its definition implies a singleton-ness- even this in practice fails the test because every US jurisdiction is overseen by multiple overlapping "governmental" authorities, and people interact with different ones often in conflict with each other all the time. However the more significant objections to "government is monopolistic" are these: In the "monopoly" sense there is literally no actual service in which any layer of US government is the sole provider. Mail delivery? Nope- UPS, Fedex, etc. Rule making? Ha. Contract law exists and in simple obvious ways even supercedes constitutional protections. Policing? Lots of private security around. Education? Tons of private schools around, including frauds that siphon public dollars while excluding public kids. Health care? Don't make me laugh/cry at the private predatory brutally expensive evilness that is so much of the US healthcare "system". Money supply? Nope, nearly all dollars are created and manager by private entities. Military? Also plenty of options here, none in any sense "well-regulated". Which brings me to the "-olistic" suffix of monopolistic, which implies an intent to monopolize, a set of behaviors that prevents competition and the existence of alternatives to the singleton. In this way, as the above shows and which is plainly evident- there is virtually no domain in which the US government acts as a predatory singleton. The "-ilistic" is the most deceptive and incorrect sense of the statement "government (in the US) is monopolistic" because it simply isn't. Amazon and Walmart, however- are defining the practice. And when it comes to "nominal democratic control"- don't get me started. A responsive customer service agent is the devil's version of democracy. No thank you. Cheers.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Policing? Lots of private security around. private security is very limited in their ability to inflict violence. >Money supply? Nope, nearly all dollars are created and manager by private entities. They might be the people "creating" the money, but the monetary policy (which affects how much your dollars are actually worth) is set by the fed. >Military? Also plenty of options here, none in any sense "well-regulated". I mean, if all you're looking for are men with guns, PMCs would indeed meet your needs. However, if you need to face off against another developed country you only have one option.
- wutbrodo 4y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. As my point is about individual choice and control, overlapping jurisdictions are not relevant to my point: I'm effect you live under the single "government" that is the superposition of multiple jurisdictions and their interactions. The fact that weed is federally illegal and legal in CA doesn't mean I get to choose which law I like: they add up to a specific de facto set of rules and risks just like a unitary govt would (though less transparently). Similarly, the use of voluntary services is clearly not what I'm referring to as monopolistic and coercive (except for their funding). There are a million and one things the government prevents or compels. > nominal democratic control"- don't get me started. A responsive customer service agent is the devil's version of democracy. No thank you. You've simply misread. "Nominal democratic control" is in reference to govt in my comment, and is contrasted with the lack of such control over corporations. I explicitly avoid the assumption of control over companies through any means other than consumer choice, where it exists.

jonahbenton 4y ago

With respect- I know what you mean when you say "government is monopolistic" but with a moment's reflection perhaps you will agree that- certainly in the US- it is an incorrect statement. There is the abstraction called "government" which in its definition implies a singleton-ness- even this in practice fails the test because every US jurisdiction is overseen by multiple overlapping "governmental" authorities, and people interact with different ones often in conflict with each other all the time. However the more significant objections to "government is monopolistic" are these: In the "monopoly" sense there is literally no actual service in which any layer of US government is the sole provider. Mail delivery? Nope- UPS, Fedex, etc. Rule making? Ha. Contract law exists and in simple obvious ways even supercedes constitutional protections. Policing? Lots of private security around. Education? Tons of private schools around, including frauds that siphon public dollars while excluding public kids. Health care? Don't make me laugh/cry at the private predatory brutally expensive evilness that is so much of the US healthcare "system". Money supply? Nope, nearly all dollars are created and manager by private entities. Military? Also plenty of options here, none in any sense "well-regulated". Which brings me to the "-olistic" suffix of monopolistic, which implies an intent to monopolize, a set of behaviors that prevents competition and the existence of alternatives to the singleton. In this way, as the above shows and which is plainly evident- there is virtually no domain in which the US government acts as a predatory singleton. The "-ilistic" is the most deceptive and incorrect sense of the statement "government (in the US) is monopolistic" because it simply isn't. Amazon and Walmart, however- are defining the practice. And when it comes to "nominal democratic control"- don't get me started. A responsive customer service agent is the devil's version of democracy. No thank you. Cheers.

gruez 4y ago
>Policing? Lots of private security around. private security is very limited in their ability to inflict violence. >Money supply? Nope, nearly all dollars are created and manager by private entities. They might be the people "creating" the money, but the monetary policy (which affects how much your dollars are actually worth) is set by the fed. >Military? Also plenty of options here, none in any sense "well-regulated". I mean, if all you're looking for are men with guns, PMCs would indeed meet your needs. However, if you need to face off against another developed country you only have one option.
wutbrodo 4y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. As my point is about individual choice and control, overlapping jurisdictions are not relevant to my point: I'm effect you live under the single "government" that is the superposition of multiple jurisdictions and their interactions. The fact that weed is federally illegal and legal in CA doesn't mean I get to choose which law I like: they add up to a specific de facto set of rules and risks just like a unitary govt would (though less transparently). Similarly, the use of voluntary services is clearly not what I'm referring to as monopolistic and coercive (except for their funding). There are a million and one things the government prevents or compels. > nominal democratic control"- don't get me started. A responsive customer service agent is the devil's version of democracy. No thank you. You've simply misread. "Nominal democratic control" is in reference to govt in my comment, and is contrasted with the lack of such control over corporations. I explicitly avoid the assumption of control over companies through any means other than consumer choice, where it exists.