Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
Since you think some things should be monopolized, why is it bad for those things to be monopolized?

I'm not trying to be cute here. It looks to me like you're saying a private monopoly is bad but a government monopoly is not.

To be clear, I'm not addressing the veracity of that claim. I disagree that a private monopoly would exist in your scenario, but that isn't relevant now since it seems like you're saying it would exist and it's bad which is why you think we should have a good government monopoly.
I'm not saying specifically that a private monopoly is bad or that a government monopoly is good. I'm saying that a free market doesn't necessarily give the benefits which it is claimed it does.

I also disapprove of referring to state control as a monopoly. The term monopoly brings all sorts of feelings with it which I don't think help the conversation. And it's not like saying state run doesn't have its own set of negative associations (inefficiency, wastefulness, slow reaction to change etc).

I don't think wealth should automatically entitle you to the best of everything. Just because you are rich, why should your trip to work be easier than mine? Why should you get access to better health care while maybe I have practically none? Why should you have access to justice which I don't?

I like to think that certain things are worthwhile giving up some form of profit for. And what we are essentially saying is a reduction on growth rate and perhaps marginally higher indirect cost. I agree with lots of the stated benefits of free trade, I just don't think the sacrifices required to obtain those benefits are worthwhile in every case.

So as I've stated before, basic infrastructure, utilities, health care, education, policing, justice and defence, should all be state run or at least heavily regulates by the state. This ensures certain freedoms exist for all. ie the freedom to travel around, to access a good quality of health care, to be safe and be protected and expect justice, to receive a decent level of education. To be free from being held to ransom over basic needs like electricity.

These freedoms are enough of a platform to be able to build something from and I think ensuring these has an effect on social mobility and opportunity.

So it's not about one monopoly over another, it's about the implications of private ownership and state ownership.

In terms of disagreeing with me about the monopoly in the road example above, I'll respond to Rentons comment below.