pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford 15 Aug \ parent \ on: Google is a monopoly. The fix isn't obvious tech
So if we all owned stock in Google would that make its "monopoly" just? We would all have ownership in a way that is similar to democracy right?
The state (government) is the invisible monopoly. It has monopoly over law and violence in its geographic borders. If you are I try to do what the agents of the state do we will be put in a dark cage. If another competing government attempted to grab some market share of the US citizens they would be met with violence. I consider that a monopoly. If you are a citizen in the US your only choice is to leave and pick another monopoly government to live under.
We can agree to disagree but I was curious. Seems like you hold the position taught in our government schools. Thank you for engaging honestly.
So if we all owned stock in Google would that make its "monopoly" just? We would all have ownership in a way that is similar to democracy right?
That's a "representative monopoly" not a Republic. It violates my 3rd definition as there is no meaningful competition. (to google)
The state (government) is the invisible monopoly. It has monopoly over law and violence in its geographic borders. If you are I try to do what the agents of the state do we will be put in a dark cage.
It is if its laws are unjust. The states are supposed to be "Sovereign". The federal government is supposed to make sure the states do that in a way consistent with the Constitution.
If another competing government attempted to grab some market share of the US citizens they would be met with violence.
That's a government beholden to a monopoly which is not what it is supposed to do. (Constitutionally)
If you are a citizen in the US your only choice is to leave and pick another monopoly government to live under.
No, you could fight what you perceive to be an injustice in court. That's another option. You could also form a political thinktank or action group. That's another option. You could organize a group of people to peaceably protest. That's still another option. You could bombard your Representatives with letters or a petition. There are many forms of resistance if there is tyranny. Your position excludes all those options and adopts a "loser" mentality.
We can agree to disagree but I was curious. Seems like you hold the position taught in our government schools.
My perspective is based on the US Constitution, which I dare say, is not really taught in government schools.
reply
Don't misunderstand me.
I understand how the US system was designed to work. I think the framers had many good ideas. Republics are far better than centralized states. But none of that changes the fact that the state has a monopoly. And once you see that many of the problems in the current US system become more clear. Corrupt politicians are just an obvious side effect. Companies like Google use the state's monopoly power to create motes that make competition harder. The state finds it easier to work with a few powerful companies. The state is a centralizing force.
The beset solution to monopolies I've seen is to allow the free market to work. But that's hard to see because the markets are so manipulated by the state (being paid off by elites).
reply
A lie repeated often enough is still a lie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjKQQpPVifY
reply
reply
I used to believe all that you just espoused. The reality is that the individual's rights are trampled and the Constitution is powerless to stop that.
Then you have your truth. You believe in the power of monopolies. I don't.
reply
I don't "believe in the power of monopolies". I just see governments as monopolies. I don't think it has to be that way. I think in free market systems monopolies are checked by competition and free choice. When a company begins to abuse their position they invite competition. They open a door.
The state's "regulation" of the market actually makes monopolies more likely by increasing start up costs for upstarts.
reply
I don't "believe in the power of monopolies". I just see governments as monopolies.
That is believing in the power of a monopoly.
I think in free market systems monopolies are checked by competition and free choice. When a company begins to abuse their position they invite competition. They open a door.
Then your "faith" is informed by your belief, which is where your reason is deriving its foundation. You have an open door for abuse, but not one for the state that would exist if there was a lack of abuse.
The state's "regulation" of the market actually makes monopolies more likely by increasing start up costs for upstarts.
Then you have confirmation of your faith.
reply
I don't think we are gonna move each other on this. We can't even agree on what a monopoly is. Regardless of the form of government (Republic, Democracy, Monarchy, Communism) the state has a monopoly over certain aspects. They have different mechanisms of influence and control. But that's not the way you see it. We are talking past each other.
reply
I don't think we are gonna move each other on this. We can't even agree on what a monopoly is.
I wasn't trying to move you, and I had no intention of moving.
Regardless of the form of government (Republic, Democracy, Monarchy, Communism) the state has a monopoly over certain aspects.
When you define something as an axiom of a thing, it will be there. I disagree with your axiom. I assert a little further that it is actually a falsehood. That things are operating under a lie doesn't make them true. It's a house of cards that will fall and is falling.
They have different mechanisms of influence and control. But that's not the way you see it. We are talking past each other.
You have defined what your truth is. I am saying that your truth is founded on a lie. We aren't talking past each other. We aren't even in the same room. If I'm right, I'm in a house, and you are in the mirage of one.
reply