Left Wing or Right Wing? Take Pop Quiz in OP!

[PocketZeven]

Can you give me an example of a non-government monopoly in those areas? Or the internet for that matter?

Which area's are you referring to?

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm still slightly left and a bit of a libertarian...

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

 

[Danoff]

Which area's are you referring to?

It's in the post you were quoting. Water, Trains, and Power.

 

[Rallywagon]

It's in the post you were quoting. Water, Trains, and Power.

I do not believe that DTE energy (once Detroit Edison) was gov founded and they have a power monopoly over most of southern MI.
This issue with this line of attack, is that at some point, you can point to pretty much and major corporation and say "look, the gov interceded here or there" which allows someone of the mind to ignore the fact that, much like AT&T back in the day, these types of infrastructure basically creates a natural monopoly. Another great example would be Comcast. They own their fiber runs, and they have the local politicians in their pocket. So even when a company like, say, lightspeed comes along, they have serious hurdles to jump since Comcast already have fiber laid, and can pay off politicians to keep company's like lightspeed from getting the permits they need to run their own fiber lines.
Again, you might point to comcast paying officials as the gov interceding, but I would argue that it's a budgeted business plan within their model. Which is not quite the same as say, the Gov taking all of ran phone lines and saying only this company can use it.

 

[Danoff]

I do not believe that DTE energy (once Detroit Edison) was gov founded and they have a power monopoly over most of southern MI.
This issue with this line of attack, is that at some point, you can point to pretty much and major corporation and say "look, the gov interceded here or there" which allows someone of the mind to ignore the fact that, much like AT&T back in the day, these types of infrastructure basically creates a natural monopoly. Another great example would be Comcast. They own their fiber runs, and they have the local politicians in their pocket. So even when a company like, say, lightspeed comes along, they have serious hurdles to jump since Comcast already have fiber laid, and can pay off politicians to keep company's like lightspeed from getting the permits they need to run their own fiber lines.
Again, you might point to comcast paying officials as the gov interceding, but I would argue that it's a budgeted business plan within their model. Which is not quite the same as say, the Gov taking all of ran phone lines and saying only this company can use it.

Just a few seconds of searching: http://sparkoffreedomfoundation.org/2016/11/04/michigan-still-not-deregulated-monopoly-utilities/

"Michigan state law guarantees utility companies like DTE Energy and Consumers Energy a near monopoly within their designated service areas. Yes, a small amount of consumer choice is allowed, but once 10 percent of consumers in a service area choose a different utility provider, no more consumers are allowed to escape their designated utility."

This doesn't look like an occurrence of a private monopoly. It looks like a governmentally protected one.

I'm not sure (I haven't looked into it) that Comcast is regulated as being the only option for broadband for households. But I'm pretty sure it isn't, because ATT, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon all provide wireless broadband to just about the entire country. If you can find a pocket where wireless broadband isn't available, there's a decent chance Comcast isn't there either, as I'm pretty sure that wireless broadband has better coverage than wired broadband in the US at this point. So what I'm saying is... I'm not sure you'll find a single example of a broadband monopoly in the US, government mandated or not.

 

[Rallywagon]

Just a few seconds of searching: http://sparkoffreedomfoundation.org/2016/11/04/michigan-still-not-deregulated-monopoly-utilities/

"Michigan state law guarantees utility companies like DTE Energy and Consumers Energy a near monopoly within their designated service areas. Yes, a small amount of consumer choice is allowed, but once 10 percent of consumers in a service area choose a different utility provider, no more consumers are allowed to escape their designated utility."

This doesn't look like an occurrence of a private monopoly. It looks like a governmentally protected one.

I'm not sure (I haven't looked into it) that Comcast is regulated as being the only option for broadband for households. But I'm pretty sure it isn't, because ATT, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon all provide wireless broadband to just about the entire country. If you can find a pocket where wireless broadband isn't available, there's a decent chance Comcast isn't there either, as I'm pretty sure that wireless broadband has better coverage than wired broadband in the US at this point. So what I'm saying is... I'm not sure you'll find a single example of a broadband monopoly in the US, government mandated or not.

Wireless broadband is more of an Oligarcy as there are only a couple of companies offering it, and most others (sprint, tmobile, metropcs for example) pay Verizon or AT&T to piggy back off their service. Further, right now, wireless is not quite comparable to wired broadband. Maybe with the proliferation of 5g that might change, but at the moment they aren't the same market.
As for Michigan and its energy market, it was fully deregulated in 2000, then good ol boy Rick Snyder came along. He was the Gov of Mi from 2010 until he termed out just this year. When he took office, The two big energy companies finally had someone they could fleece, and fleece they did, dumping millions into their respective lobbying groups to get their way. The only reason Michigan has a regulated monopoly in their energy sector is because they bought it.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's in the post you were quoting. Water, Trains, and Power.

I thought you were referring to geographic locations. In those area's are mostly oligopolies. Did I say any were monopolies?

 

[Danoff]

but at the moment they aren't the same market.

I know people that use wireless broadband as their main household broadband access.

As for Michigan and its energy market, it was fully deregulated in 2000, then good ol boy Rick Snyder came along. He was the Gov of Mi from 2010 until he termed out just this year. When he took office, The two big energy companies finally had someone they could fleece, and fleece they did, dumping millions into their respective lobbying groups to get their way. The only reason Michigan has a regulated monopoly in their energy sector is because they bought it.

As is usually the case.

 

[Rallywagon]

I know people that use wireless broadband as their main household broadband access.

That doesnt really make it a competitor. As of 2018, fixed wireless and satellite broadband access had 2 million subscribers and was decreasing from a 2015 high of just over 3 millions, compared to over 150 million users on wired broadband. As of yet, its main sphere is of course, mobile internet access, and has long since become a homes main voice "line". But its not yet a competitor in the home broadband market.



As is usually the case.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but, if they are paying for it, I am not sure I would really count it as a "gov made monopoly." Its a bought and paid for monopoly.

 

[Danoff]

That doesnt really make it a competitor.

Kinda does though.

As of 2018, fixed wireless and satellite broadband

What's "fixed" wireless broadband? Your phone (possibly your primary computer) has broadband, in your house... And you think it's not a viable broadband option in your house.

Sure, but, if they are paying for it, I am not sure I would really count it as a "gov made monopoly." Its a bought and paid for monopoly.

Uh... you mean the government was paid to create it? That's some twisted reasoning there.

 

[PocketZeven]

Uh... you mean the government was paid to create it? That's some twisted reasoning there.

He means the government was paid to allow it to happen.

 

[Danoff]

He means the government was paid to allow it to happen.

That's what government does. That is (largely) what is wrong with government. That is (largely) why we need minimal government. In order to pay the government to provide you with a monopoly, you need (at least) government.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's what government does. That is (largely) what is wrong with government. That is (largely) why we need minimal government. In order to pay the government to provide you with a monopoly, you need (at least) government.

Without (or little) government, there is no one to stop corporations monopolizing everything.

 

[Danoff]

Without (or little) government, there is no one to stop corporations monopolizing everything.

Seems like government is an essential ingredient.

 

[PocketZeven]

Seems like government is an essential ingredient.

To a Monopoly?

 

[Danoff]

To a Monopoly?

 

[PocketZeven]

You can have a monopoly without a government.

 

[Danoff]

You can have a monopoly without a government.

A monopoly in anarchy ends up being the government, in the form of a dictatorship. Can you give me an example of a monopoly in the absence of government? That's a tough ask. What is a corporation even in the absence of government?

Do you mean you can have a monopoly without help from the government? That was what I was asking for examples of earlier.

 

[Dotini]

The combination of government and corporations acting in unity represents the perfected form of fascism, IMO.

 

[PocketZeven]

A monopoly in anarchy ends up being the government, in the form of a dictatorship. Can you give me an example of a monopoly in the absence of government? That's a tough ask. What is a corporation even in the absence of government?

Do you mean you can have a monopoly without help from the government? That was what I was asking for examples of earlier.

Exactly. Most likely you will end up with a monarchy or empire.

edit: to add to that. I mean a non-elected "government"

 

[Rallywagon]

No, I mean exactly what Danoff said. The governement was paid to create the laws that allowed the monopoly. That's how lobbying works. Take my money and in return do what's in my best interest.
Edit: damn, that moved fast, this post in reply to this one

He means the government was paid to allow it to happen.

 

[Danoff]

Exactly. Most likely you will end up with a monarchy or empire.

That's what I'm saying to you.

 

[Rallywagon]

A monopoly in anarchy ends up being the government, in the form of a dictatorship. Can you give me an example of a monopoly in the absence of government? That's a tough ask. What is a corporation even in the absence of government?

Do you mean you can have a monopoly without help from the government? That was what I was asking for examples of earlier.

Wouldn't a corporation in the absence of governement just be a corporation? One doesnt need the other to exist. Isnt a corporation just a large commercial venture? Further, asking for an example of one without a government would be an impossible task since there has never been a society without a governement. At best, we could point to perhaps the trading and bartering back in tribal days, but even those had some form of governement in their own respect.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, I mean exactly what Danoff said. The governement was paid to create the laws that allowed the monopoly. That's how lobbying works. Take my money and in return do what's in my best interest.
Edit: damn, that moved fast, this post in reply to this one

Oh my mistake

That's what I'm saying to you.

That is what I am confirming.

Wouldn't a corporation in the absence of governement just be a corporation? One doesnt need the other to exist. Isnt a corporation just a large commercial venture? Further, asking for an example of one without a government would be an impossible task since there has never been a society without a governement. At best, we could point to perhaps the trading and bartering back in tribal days, but even those had some form of governement in their own respect.

That is what many SF stories predict. A future where the CEO of a corporation rules and controls all. Essentially a modernday empire.

 

[Rallywagon]

Oh my mistake



That is what I am confirming.


That is what many SF stories predict. A future where the CEO of a corporation rules and controls all. Essentially a modernday empire.

I mean, there is already huge pushes to make govs run more like business's than governments. And there is definitely huge intermingling of corporate exec's and the top brass of gov across the board. Especially under Trump. But at that point is it corporate ran, or just relabeling communism, where the gov controls production, just under the guise of being a business?

 

[PocketZeven]

I mean, there is already huge pushes to make govs run more like business's than governments. And there is definitely huge intermingling of corporate exec's and the top brass of gov across the board. Especially under Trump. But at that point is it corporate ran, or just relabeling communism, where the gov controls production, just under the guise of being a business?

I always hated that idea. Running a country like business is not how one should run a country.

 

[Danoff]

Wouldn't a corporation in the absence of governement just be a corporation? One doesnt need the other to exist. Isnt a corporation just a large commercial venture? Further, asking for an example of one without a government would be an impossible task since there has never been a society without a governement. At best, we could point to perhaps the trading and bartering back in tribal days, but even those had some form of governement in their own respect.

A corporation can't exist without the protection of human rights. It arms itself and becomes an army or government itself.

 

[PocketZeven]

A corporation can't exist without the protection of human rights. It arms itself and becomes an army or government itself.

Protection in what context?

 

[Danoff]

Protection in what context?

Government? See my signature.

 

[PocketZeven]

Government? See my signature.

But a Corporation is not political. Why cant it exist without the protection of human rights?