What I could never seem to understand, is that if people think

They argue not that monopolies are inherently bad (although they are) but that a monopoly by free enterprise will hurt consumers while a government monopoly will aid consumers. In ideal non-corrupt circumstances this would be true, but that ideal non-corrupt circumstance is unlikely to ever occur.

>>2468370

Because the government is controlled by the public

File: image.jpg (49KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x386px

>>2468414

File: 1434232430329.jpg (21KB, 250x240px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x240px

>>2468414

>>2468414
way to ruin the thread

>>2468414
Actually chuckled IRL

>>2468370
because enterprise owners care only about themselves, while the government (theoretically) cares about their people.

>>2468370
Study economics 101. One of the solutions to natural monopolies and have them produce at equilibrium and maximum economic efficiency is have the consumers be the owners of the monopoly.

>>2468381
Private sector is just as corrupt, quid pro quo is standard, it's just allowed because freedom of association and private ownership means they're supposed to be allowed to do what they want. If they did the same things they do in the private sector in the public sector, they would be considered corrupt. We just hold public institutions to a higher standard.

>>2468640
Government by definition pretty much already has a monopoly in some areas. Even if it's an evil coercive monopoly, and by a democratic government, at the very least that additional monopoly revenue goes towards state coffers, and possibly towards public works and reducing taxation, which like it or not, the government has a a coercive monopoly over. This is still better than some private individual getting the additional monopoly revenue and having to pay taxes to the state.

File: IMG_2004.jpg (46KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x480px

>>2468414