[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]

Paul Johnson wrote:
> I read what you wrote, but what you suggest would mean, by extension, I should 
> be able to choose who I flush my toilet through (as opposed to just the 
> city's sewer), whose streets I drive on (government monopoly on 
> transportation right now), and choose who I have for a president (supreme 
> court does that anymore).  But it's just not going to ever happen in the US.

I think that you are confusing things which are a monopoly out of
necessity (e.g., roads, defense) and things which are a monopoly out of
convenience (e.g., schools, telecom).  In the former case, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to choose from one "provider" or another
becuase of the way in which the service is provided.  "Gee, I really
want to be defended by the Texas National Guard, becuase they do a
better job than the Pennsylvania National Guard.  Forget that I live in

Things like schools and telecommunications are monopolies of
convenience.  That is, as long as people think that everybody is
subsidizing everyone else, the government can just tell me which
provider to use (e.g., which phone company or which school district) and
I don't have to expend any brain cells to figure it out myself and I
don't have to see the "real cost."  Think about it.  With telecom,
people in high-density areas (cities) subsidize people in low-density
areas (country-side).  Of course, the "deregulation" of the telecom
industry is starting to change things.  But seriously, people who live
in the country should not get a free (or reduced fare) ride on the backs
of the city dwellers.

Of course, since telecom monopolies were established in the manner in
which they were established, everything had to be "equitable."


Roberto C. Sanchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: