Are progressives really against monopolies?

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture

Right now, 545 men and women have final say over practically every activity 300+ million Americans engage in.  The government in Washington is a monopoly.  If you support breaking up a monopoly that occurs on the free market, are you against breaking up the monopoly in Washington?

Comments

polycarp2
Probably a "free market" in

Probably a "free market" in governments wouldn't work out very well. Each household having their own Pres. and currency would be a disaster.

Good government is nothing more than communities organizing to do what they want done...jointly. If government can't do that, it has no legitimacy unless the population opts for top-down rule. We seem to have opted for that.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
polycarp2 wrote: Probably a

polycarp2 wrote:

Probably a "free market" in governments wouldn't work out very well. Each household having their own Pres. and currency would be a disaster.

Why?

Quote:

Good government is nothing more than communities organizing to do what they want done...jointly. If government can't do that, it has no legitimacy unless the population opts for top-down rule. We seem to have opted for that.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Why can the people in communities do that same thing voluntarily, with consent?  At least, why don't you support a decentralized system?  You seem to view the Federal gov't as some sort of expression of the collective will. 

Would it be so bad or impossible to conceive each of the 50 states being it's own country?  Or do the peoples of the 50 states have to be lorded over by the government in D.C.?  You talk a good game but when the rubber meets the road, you advocate for a centralized State.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:Would it be so bad or

Quote:
Would it be so bad or impossible to conceive each of the 50 states being it's own country?
Damn! Why didn't I think of that? Why not have every county or township exist as its own sovereign nation?

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
Art wrote: Quote:Would it be

Art wrote:

Quote:
Would it be so bad or impossible to conceive each of the 50 states being it's own country?
Damn! Why didn't I think of that? Why not have every county or township exist as its own sovereign nation?

What would be wrong with that?

Art
Art's picture
Quote:What would be wrong

Quote:
What would be wrong with that?
Well, it wouldn't be the United States of America any more. In principal , I wouldn't have much problem letting every state sink or swim on its own merits, Good ridance to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, all the debtor states. The rest of us can get together and form a federation with a constitutional Government.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Each state has their own

Each state has their own govt. And in our federal system, the national govt has greater authority. 

As for monopoly by govt, that is an absurd comparison. Monoply refers to a market condition, govt is not a market. 

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: Each state

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Each state has their own govt. And in our federal system, the national govt has greater authority. 

I have to disagree.  The States created the national government.  How can the creation have more authority?

Quote:

As for monopoly by govt, that is an absurd comparison. Monoply refers to a market condition, govt is not a market. 

The government has the legal monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographical area.  What would happen is someone wanted to set up a competing government is the same area?  If a private entity did what the government would do, you'd be rightfully making a stink.  But since you worship violence, you have no problem with the government stamping out it's competitors.

micahjr34
I don't know about anybody

I don't know about anybody else, but I would not mind a monopoly on the strict condition that the company that is a monopoly got that way because they had better prices, better service, a better product, and most of all treated its workers with respect. If a business has all four of these traits, I might even buy stock in it...

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
LysanderSpooner

LysanderSpooner wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Each state has their own govt. And in our federal system, the national govt has greater authority. 

I have to disagree.  The States created the national government.  How can the creation have more authority?

Quote:

As for monopoly by govt, that is an absurd comparison. Monoply refers to a market condition, govt is not a market. 

The government has the legal monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographical area.  What would happen is someone wanted to set up a competing government is the same area?  If a private entity did what the government would do, you'd be rightfully making a stink.  But since you worship violence, you have no problem with the government stamping out it's competitors.

If government is a monopoly then so is wall street.  Anyone participating in capitalism is participating in a monopoly as well.  All electricians are in a monopoly because nobody but a legally licenced electrician can work on your house.  The government is made up of individuals from different states broken up into 3 branches.  No monopoly there.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
micahjr34 wrote: I don't know

micahjr34 wrote:

I don't know about anybody else, but I would not mind a monopoly on the strict condition that the company that is a monopoly got that way because they had better prices, better service, a better product, and most of all treated its workers with respect. If a business has all four of these traits, I might even buy stock in it...

I'm with you on that one micah.  So called progressives want justice on all levels.  Not really an over all agenda.  At least that is what this progressive wants.

nickel
WERE IS TODAYS SHOW

WERE IS TODAYS SHOW ??????????????? EVERY LINK TAKES ME TO YESTERDAY!!!!!!!!!

 

micahjr34
Nickel, I do not know the

Nickel,

I do not know the answer to your question. However, next time be more cautious to not interrupt a thread with technical matters unless the OP allows it.  Nickel, however I do thank you for trying to listen to Thom Hartmann anyways! 

nickel
HOW DID I INTERUPT

HOW DID I INTERUPT ANYTHING????? i JUST ASKED A QUESTION????????????WHATS AN OP????????????

 

polycarp2
LysanderSpooner

LysanderSpooner wrote:

polycarp2 wrote:

Probably a "free market" in governments wouldn't work out very well. Each household having their own Pres. and currency would be a disaster.

Why?

Quote:

Good government is nothing more than communities organizing to do what they want done...jointly. If government can't do that, it has no legitimacy unless the population opts for top-down rule. We seem to have opted for that.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Why can the people in communities do that same thing voluntarily, with consent?  At least, why don't you support a decentralized system?  You seem to view the Federal gov't as some sort of expression of the collective will. 

Would it be so bad or impossible to conceive each of the 50 states being it's own country?  Or do the peoples of the 50 states have to be lorded over by the government in D.C.?  You talk a good game but when the rubber meets the road, you advocate for a centralized State.

Well, I do opt for consent of the governed...and more than mere consent. In our monastery, each member of the community has an equal vote in every decision that effects the community. We consent to majority-approved  proposals and reject (through majority vote)  proposals that are against the interests of the community as a whole. An hour a week is devoted to Council Meetings to consider and approve/disapprove proposals. Usually the only business to discuss is do you want cream and sugar in your coffee.

Our "representative" system is limited to confering with other monasteries on issues that effect two or more monasteries. The elected representative can merely express the decisions made by his own community. He represents our voice...not his own. Call it a very loose confederation.

A monastery functions as a small nation state...minus a sovereign currency  and Dept. of War.

U. S. communities would probably do well to learn how to govern themselves in the same manner. Direct democracy does work when given an opportunity to flourish. It begins at the community level. Beyond the community, the  representatives are bound by the communiy's interests. Representatives  can't promote their own agendas except within the community that elects them.... for approval/disapproval.

Elected representatives represent our voice when meeting with representatives from other monasteries...not their own voice. The representatives can propose nothing on their own outside of their own monastery. Their votes are bound by the decisions of the community they represent when they meet with representatives from other monasteries. . Their proposals are bound by the proposals made by the community they represent...determined in a direct democratic manner in Council.

You could set up similar systems. Venezuela is experimenting with them.

By comparison to our democracy, your own "democracy" is pretty much a farce. I'd go so far as to say it's un-democratic.

You have a centralized top down governmental system. Your representatives represent minority interests or their own.That's the one I normally address. It doesn't mean I approve of it. It seems rather dysfunctional.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

 

nickel
Same assholes, just

Same assholes, just pretending to care about lost people

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
How can the Feds have more

How can the Feds have more authority? The Supremacy clause.
As for violence and force, you make the distinction yourself, legitimate use of. Cops can shoot people who are trying to kill others. Does paste-eaterarianism encourage murder? Unlikely. You allow for the legitimate use of force.
If someone else tried to establish a parallel "govt" that is not allowed. They'd lack a legal basis to tax, field an army, or enforce laws.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Nickel, I don't know how to

Nickel, I don't know how to help you. A better place to seek this might be contacting the show by email.