3 ms·

That's where legislation is supposed to step in to prevent monopolization, which currently is not happening sufficiently. The alternative is the government own

• vrganj 2mo ago
  > The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse. Why? That's just an assertion with no backing. If the government is democratically elected, how is democratic control over resources worse than a few oligarchs acting autocratically? > which currently is not happening sufficiently. This is not by accident. This is due to the mechanisms described above, a direct result of capitalism. A few have been able to amass enough resources to use them to influence lawmakers and tilt the board in their favor. It's not an accident. It's what actually existing capitalism does.
  • OroPla 2mo ago
    Because the government then by default has a monopoly on everything. The worst of the worst. It doesn't matter who the people with the monopoly are, it matters that there is a monopoly. It's like saying that a just king is better than separation of powers. Maybe, but in which way do you ensure the king stays just? How is it that the means of production being privately owned for profit has the consequence of legislation failing to prevent monopolies? The government managed to break up the monopoly that Standard Oil had become back in 1911 just fine with capitalism existing, did it not?