They are largely wrong.
Most, if not all, corporations get large by government privilege.
Almost every single example of a monopoly, or near monopoly, in history has been because of government privilege and preference.
.
No, that's not true. The biggest monopolies were mostly before the government started busting monopolies up- standard oil, bell telephone, etc.
Economies of scale totally overwhelm that.
Right off the top the guy is proven to be irrational and wrong in his analysis
Original Sin
Original sin is in the bible as part of the Genesis myth. For it to be an actual reason for why Utopia can never be reached it would mean the literal version of Genesis would have to be true. As that is not the case the entire reason for his arguement falls apart
Lot of debate on that very issue.
I'd like to politely challenge both of you prove your assertions, namely that monopolies or oppressive corporations are or are not a result of gov't privilege, with suitable sources and information, as opposed to simply disagreeing on the subject.
One of the main problems I have with the Democrat party is their further-left-elements seem to be in charge too much of the time; the party leadership is often much further left than the average party member.
My main problem with the Republican party is that all too often the least sensible and least principled among them seem to rise to positions of power.
If you have a wasp up your butt about the term Original Sin, then call it human nature, baser instincts, or human corruptibility if you wish. The point remains that humans are not perfectable, therefore utopia is not achieveable. Argue against that statement if you wish.
Lets start with the Pacific Railway Acts.
It gave land grants to railroad companies, so they would build railroads throughout the continental U.S.
That eventually gave them 1/10 of the total land in the U.S.
Pacific Railway Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Later with Standard Oil.
Standard Oil created a partnership with the Railroad companies to prevent other oil competitors from crossing property owned by the railroad companies, effectively eliminating their ability to compete on any level.
Standard Oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bells were given a regional monopoly.
It was granted by the government.
Bell System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boy you love rewriting history.
First off Governments have always given out permission to private companies and people to do things. This goes back thousands of years and is hardly a "liberal idea". Like it or not, kings and queens gave noblemen permission to rule over areas and the people there. Like it or not, your little continent would not have been rediscovered by Columbus if it had not been for government money and permission. Like it or not it was not a "liberal" conspiracy or anything but the way that almost every major industrial base was started. Governments granted licences to do a job and often to one person only.. and this happened long before socialist thinking ever came to the for front. Your whole country is founded on this principle.... Everything from the first settlers to power grids, water grids and so on were started due to government permission or/and funding. You might be deluded to think that it was the private sector that created the wealth of the US and the industrialized world, but the reality is without government permission, support and patents it would never have happened.
Secondly, the Pacific Railway Acts as you stated gave land grants to PRIVATE companies. That another private company later on made a deal with these companies can not be a shocker for anyone.. it happens all the time. And if they are allowed to keep making these deals unchecked then you get cartels and monopolies that damage the free market you so cherish. Hence Government is needed to hold such things in check.
Thirdly, Standard Oil used questionable methods to gain its near monopoly, including murder, bribery and so on. They basically used any and all methods to gain the monopoly because there was zero credible government regulation to prevent it. In the end they went to far, or as I like to see it.. did not grease the correct politicians, and they were broken up.
Fourthly, the Bells.. yes they were government granted "monopolies" pretty much and they still exist as such pretty much. And so what? Again... most infrastructure from power grids to the internet is only here because of government giving permission, regionally, locally or nationally. Think it as a patent and that resulted in you having a telephone net. No private company has ever started up a grid of any sort without government help.
As for this thread, another right wing fantasy thread based on false pretences about the "left".
No, citing history.
Pete if you bothered to read the things I wrote before hand, you'd see that I never said this is some liberal scheme.
Read first then comment, I said it wasn't right to characterize liberals as "utopian."
Wealth is created by individuals.
Government permission is merely a formality as people would still seek wealth without their consent.
For further study, see the drug trade.
The government allowed them to become what they were through generous land grants.
1/10th of the U.S. is a lot of land with that comes immeasurable power.
A lot of those methods had the backing of the government.
Many labor strikes were attacked with national guard troops.
Questionable methods would be partnering with a government sponsored entity (railroads) to exclude other market participants.
Teamosil brought them up, I didn't.
Private firms could create a power/cable grid, although I think the better alternative would be community subsidized power grids with multiple, small generation companies.
Which allows consumer choice.
I have not defended the saying that, liberal = utopian.
Take off your partisan blinders for a moment and see that I actually said it wasn't right to call liberals utopian.
Fair enough, my bad.
Standard Oil was a product of the Pacific Railway act.
The Bell companies had a government granted regional monopoly.
Not true.
If it were, U.S. Steel would still have a majority market share like they did in the early 1900's.
The idea behind original sin wouldn mean that people could not fight against "human/animal" nature in order to improve their lives as well as those around them. As human nature is instinctive behaviour that thousands of years of evolution has caused to be part of our character. However as human have gained the ability for critical thinking, the long term storage of information and knowledge, we do not have to be slaves to our base instincts if we so choose not to be. Those of strong will and mind can overcome the base instinct that evolution has created for us.
Original sin would mean that we are not responsible for our actions as they are derived from god, that we are sinners by nature and that seeking to improve ourself to be above it is impossible
I strongly disagree with this. Clinton, for example, was substantially to the right of the average Democrat. He kicked 3/4 of the people on welfare off of it, he dropped the capital gains tax by a shocking 10%, he reduced regulation in a lot of sectors, etc. Economically he was actually quite conservative. .
Actually most of what you are talking about was pushed by the Republican House under Newt Gingrinch, and the Contract with America. Clinton opposed many of these measures until he realized they were popular and that opposing them was hurting his political capital.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?