The Democracy of the founding fathers was Greek Democracy, predicated upon a slave society, and restricted to only the elite. This is the society we live in today, even with our reforms towards direct representation. The system is inherently biased towards the election of elites and against the representation of the masses. Hamilton called it “faction” when the working class got together and demanded better conditions, and mechanisms were built in (which still exist to this day) that serve to ensure the continued dominance of the elite over the masses. The suffering of the many is intentional. The opulence of the wealthy is also. This is the intended outcome.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
2 points

What’s wrong with a monopoly if people are satisfied with it’s service? In Canada, the government has a monopoly on healthcare and generally people don’t complain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

By definition, publicly owned services cannot be a monopoly. That’s because it’s publicly owned. Capitalism and monopoly arise from private ownership.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Your definition doesn’t seem to be correct. This article mentions government granted monopolies (i.e hydro) and states monopolies (i.e healthcare).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly

Contrary to what I said earlier, residents of certain provinces have been complaining that the quality of their healthcare has been substandard, and are upset that there are no alternatives available as the law forbids private doctors from even setting up shop there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm

That is not public healthcare. That would be like the US only allowing Mayo Clinic to operate. Public healthcare is provided by the government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

that seems kinda revisionist. if i think i have a better way in which to provide healthcare, am i allowed to pursue that alongside others who consent? if “no”, then something has monopolized healthcare — be it a private entity, public, or some combination.

the libertarian refrain is “government is the monopoly on violence”, and that seems broadly true, even if the police force is publicly directed… no?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s not a libertarian refrain, just one that they stole from the left. Like the name Libertarian itself, which actually means communist essentially.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I see that mental trap of yours. Without getting into the weeds, I’m a type of anarchist. I don’t believe the state should exist in the first place, healthcare belongs to the commons. You’re trying to suggest that private healthcare is your “better way”, so no, it shouldn’t be allowed. As long as the state exists, that argument will be used. Therefore we should eliminate the hierarchy that justifies ownership over the means of production.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Because everyone owns it, their own money in the form of taxes working for them. Guard it viciously.

permalink
report
parent
reply