01-22-2017, 02:12 AM
(01-21-2017, 01:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-20-2017, 05:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-20-2017, 03:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-20-2017, 02:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-20-2017, 01:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Why is private power acceptable to libertarians, but public power is not?
Because public power is held by a monopoly: the government can be as unreasonable as it wants, and the individual can do nothing about it.
Private power is normally held by competing providers; if one provider is unreasonable, the individual can switch to a different provider.
Not if the providers are in a virtual monopoly; choices are limited. The individual can do nothing about the decisions of the owners, and (s)he has no voice and no vote.
Agreed, which is why it's crucial to prevent government from facilitating monopolies by creating barriers to the entry of new competitors through regulatory requirements and such. Some antitrust enforcement may also be required. For natural monopolies, regulation may be appropriate, or even government supply where usage cannot reasonably be metered and charged. However, natural monopolies are very much the exception rather than the rule.
I agree; I just don't see "regulation" as the bugaboo that you do. Regulations are often needed. Sometimes it's good to purge them if all they do is hinder business. But the Republicans purge just the ones we most need, like environmental regulations and minimum working conditions standards and wages. The way I've seen small businesses get eaten up fast by chains, especially in the media and new fields like coffee houses, video stores, office supply shops, etc. etc., it's seems clear to me that it's the greedy capitalists who create monopolies; it's always been that way going back to the time of the railroads and the trust companies.
You haven't been keeping track of the regulatory capture that has been happening. The latest EPA mileage requirements, for example, give bonuses to larger SUVs relative to smaller cars - the allowed fuel consumption is proportional to width times length, with a 50% increase for SUVs - which provides exactly the wrong incentives from an environmental perspective. Either Obama doesn't really care about the environment or he dropped the ball on that one. It's par for the course, though; there's a revolving door between the regulators and the industry they regulate, and over time regulations tend more and more to protect big business rather than working for the consumer.
Quote:Quote:Quote:In the government, the public is the boss and the people have a voice and a vote. The major task is to make sure government is controlled by the people, and not the bosses. If this is done, then the government's only boss is the people. It belongs to them.
"The people" are not monolithic. What you describe, even in a democracy, is a recipe for dictatorship of the majority. You may be fine with that when you are in the majority, but I bet you wouldn't be so happy with a government controlled by the religious right and willing to impose their religion on you.
Well, we've got one. And no, I'm already unhappy. And I was unhappy in the extreme under Bush and Reagan. These disasters happened because the people were deceived into voting for the bosses. When the people vote their own interests, I get a government that I'm happy with. That kind of "dictatorship," in which the government we elect has to answer to the people, expressed in their letters, emails and calls and in their votes, and not to the lobbyists for the big bosses, is one I am fine with.
The government is far from controlled by the religious right; they are only one of three major factions in the Republican party.
However, my interests certainly coincide with voting for Republicans at the federal level; I was much better off under Reagan, and even Bush, than I was under Obama or even Clinton. It sounds like what you want is a government that's responsive to your needs but not to mine.