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 Iowa." 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 -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature