3 ms·

I'd like to think that it's twice as good as a one-party system.

• lapcat 2mo ago
  Not sure whether you're serious or joking, but in the realm of economics, I think that duopolies are actually worse than monopolies, because everyone recognizes that a monopoly needs to be strictly regulated and/or broken up, whereas when there's a duopoly, that's supposedly "competition" and thus the duopolies largely escape regulation or breakup, even if they implicitly or explicitly cooperate and coordinate to crush any other competition. In the same way, the obvious solution to a one-party system is to overthrow the government, whereas with a two-party system, you're supposed to fight within the system... and mostly accomplish nothing, because those in power have overlapping interests.
  • cucumber3732842 2mo ago
    >because everyone recognizes that a monopoly needs to be strictly regulated and/or broken up And who's gonna do that when the government has a monopoly?
    • lapcat 2mo ago
      > the government has a monopoly What do you mean exactly? This seems a little too vague.
      • cucumber3732842 2mo ago
        Breaking up a monopoly requires some external entity that has power over the monopoly. There is no such entity for government. So as bad as a two party government is one party would likely be way worse.
        • lapcat 2mo ago
          I said, comparing a political monopoly to an economic monopoly, "In the same way, the obvious solution to a one-party system is to overthrow the government" The "external entity" is the people in revolution against the government. This was how the US itself was founded, in revolution against the existing monarchy.
• bentobean 2mo ago
  It’s double plus good!