Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
Government organizations put into effect the policies set by the congress (or whatever you want to call it). The congress bases their policies on science, expert opinions and public opinion. The congress consists of citizens that other citizens want to vote in. That's the theory. In principle, I see nothing that separates a congressman or a government bureaucrat from a private entrepreneur or worker. They could, and often are, the same people. I agree somewhat with your argument about the incentive structure regarding the public employee, but I think similar challenges have been put forth for the private employee. The actual objective in the public sector to just "do good" may not completely counterweight the lower incentives for innovation, but it might also be for the best that an institution providing central basic services, should not be spearheading innovation and using higher risk strategies that come with it. If I had to choose between slower innovation and somewhat less cost-effective strategies, and systemic risks regarding safety and environmental sustainability, it'd be an easy choice.
Same people + different incentives + different powers = different results.

The objective of pretty much every company out there is to create a monopoly, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with monopolies per se. Abusing the the monopoly position with coercive tactics is completely different, and I don't see anything that the free market can do about all of them, or has done in the past. Reputational harm if of no consequence if you control your market segment and can block anyone else from entering. Please tell me if there is a government force in effect that stifles the free market from taking down coercive monopolies right now, since if there are none, seems like coercive monopolies could not exist. US railroads, Microsoft and IBM come to mind.
Competition is the checks and balances in the market

These examples of monopolies you've listed aren't monopolies. There are viable alternatives to them all. Microsoft is an exciting example of just how not-monopoly market actors are as well as fundamental disadvantages of incumbent powers within them. I believe I explained why earlier ITT.

In virtually every area that consumers complain about monopolies by corporate oligarchies, they're actually looking at status created by government policies. Probably the best example of this right now is ISPs. Consumers think we're raked over the coals by the companies because they own the lines and there's nothing we can do about it. But that isn't true. There are a bunch of other companies who want in the ISP game, but they can't do it because municipal governments won't let them. Setting up new broadband networks is a regulatory nightmare that no amount of money solves because the regulations exist due to voting incumbents who lobby their local governments to keep out any competition (Union Policy 101). It's not a coincidence that Google Fiber started in the most deregulated area in the country (Kansas) and is nowhere close to getting into areas like New York City.