...the conservative version of the noble savages that represent the ideal we should aspire to. - cf Frank's vision of the Pandorans). Not Libertarians.
Anyhow: who benefits? Well it's either the citizens or the taxpayers, right? Maybe the problem in communication we usually have on this subject is because you see them as different sets of people, and I don't?
Your decrying the monopoly in this case would be more credible if you had not defended them in the past, when talking about cable companies and banks.
You know you went through an impressive flips in that post. At first monopolies were bad. Then they were something that liberals fear because they are so silly.
My opinion: government run monopolies need not be monopolies at all. Instead, the contract should be reevaluated periodically. A new provider should be swapped in if you can get a better deal and/or better service. So even if you only have one provider at a time, there is still competition over time. And the point of it at all is that you can get a better deal, if you buy in bulk. When you buy retail, you lose.
I would not recommend that the government start providing my cereal. Trash collection is a very good target for city involvement for obvious reasons. If you need me to expand on that thought I will be happy to.
Flame » in reply to Re: More creeping socialism!!!
I believe we were talking about TeaPartiers (who are of course...
The whole thread (32 posts)
- San Francisco bans Happy Meals