Another logically inconsistent position of statism: monopolies are bad - because a single entity is in control; government monopoly is good - because a single entity is in control.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful feedback! You bring up an excellent point about the statist’s attempt to counter their inconsistency regarding monopolies. Namely, that a monopoly is good or bad based on the motivation of the actor (bad motivation when performed privately, good when performed publicly).
Also, thank you for pointing out the statist’s attempt to justify the inconsistency lacks sufficient evidence.
I might add on to your insight, and point out a few more problems with their argument:
1. The statist brings into the argument the public actor’s motivation for a good public outcome. The problem of course, is (as stated in the piece), the statist disregards the (undeniable) fact that the State operates by force…by violating consent. This is the method by which he wants the public actor to achieve his lofty goals…by coercion of innocent humans. In essence, “I want good things for people, and I am willing to make than happen at gunpoint”.
But presumably, holding a gun to people’s head is not a good thing. So he finds himself once again in an argumentative inconsistency. Put another way: the statist will stand by idly and accept the astounding evils that arise from the State (as monopolist of a host of social products and services...see my post https://markmaresca.substack.com/p/from-the-white-pillbox-part-30). But paradoxically he explains this away by his love of humanity.
You are right, it may be true my account of the statist was uncharitable. But I concern myself more with being charitable towards the countless victims of the State, and observe that the statist, whatever his intentions, seems rather uncharitable about them.
Your account in this post seems a bit uncharitable. Statists have a more reasonable (though still flawed) argument to address the apparent inconsistency.
They would insist that private monopolies are bad because those in charge act selfishly, maximizing profit and exploiting their customers. They hope that public monopolies would be run by or overseen by persons motivated to seek the common good, and that everyone will benefit as a result of their good intentions.
While this position lacks sufficient evidence to qualify as credible, it isn’t quite a naked contradiction.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful feedback! You bring up an excellent point about the statist’s attempt to counter their inconsistency regarding monopolies. Namely, that a monopoly is good or bad based on the motivation of the actor (bad motivation when performed privately, good when performed publicly).
Also, thank you for pointing out the statist’s attempt to justify the inconsistency lacks sufficient evidence.
I might add on to your insight, and point out a few more problems with their argument:
1. The statist brings into the argument the public actor’s motivation for a good public outcome. The problem of course, is (as stated in the piece), the statist disregards the (undeniable) fact that the State operates by force…by violating consent. This is the method by which he wants the public actor to achieve his lofty goals…by coercion of innocent humans. In essence, “I want good things for people, and I am willing to make than happen at gunpoint”.
But presumably, holding a gun to people’s head is not a good thing. So he finds himself once again in an argumentative inconsistency. Put another way: the statist will stand by idly and accept the astounding evils that arise from the State (as monopolist of a host of social products and services...see my post https://markmaresca.substack.com/p/from-the-white-pillbox-part-30). But paradoxically he explains this away by his love of humanity.
You are right, it may be true my account of the statist was uncharitable. But I concern myself more with being charitable towards the countless victims of the State, and observe that the statist, whatever his intentions, seems rather uncharitable about them.
2. The statist assumes good motivations by the public actor, and bad motivations by the private actor. He fails to see the logical inconsistency here as well. (see my post https://markmaresca.substack.com/p/from-the-white-pillbox-part-41)
Thank you again!!
Your account in this post seems a bit uncharitable. Statists have a more reasonable (though still flawed) argument to address the apparent inconsistency.
They would insist that private monopolies are bad because those in charge act selfishly, maximizing profit and exploiting their customers. They hope that public monopolies would be run by or overseen by persons motivated to seek the common good, and that everyone will benefit as a result of their good intentions.
While this position lacks sufficient evidence to qualify as credible, it isn’t quite a naked contradiction.