Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 07:51 it was so written:
> On May 2, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Curt Howland wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 22:40, Paul Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> was
> >> Portland, Oregon is a great argument against privatization of
> >> critical infrastructure. For the longest time, it was the
> >> poster child of privatization, with Portland General Electric as
> >> the local, private, power utility and residential power
> >> monopoly...
> > Excuse me, but how can "privatization" and "monopoly" be used to
> > refer to the same action? A legally mandated monopoly is
> > hardly "privatization", it remains a legal arm of the government.
> Well, they're pretty much orthogonal terms. "Monopoly" describes
> the market structure whereas "privatization" describes a change in
> the ownership structure. Changing ownership doesn't necessarily
> change the market structure.
Exactly. The phone company maintained a legal monopoly, granted by
government, which would prosecute anyone who tried to compete with
Do I have to mince and couch words, to say "it's like" it remains an
arm of the government?
> The purchasing company has willingly signed a contract to provide a
> specific service to the City of Portland.
Unfortunately, the people of Portland were effected and not just the
Portland city government. Having someone else sign a contract to
which I am bound by force sounds far more like an arm of government
than any private firm I've ever heard of.
> It would only be a legal
> arm of the gov't if the gov't has seats on the company's
> governance board (e.g. BPA, TVA, Postal Service, and Port Authority
> of NY&NJ)
Merchantilism is a very pernicious policy.
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central
planning advocates in American history
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----