As an unaffiliated voter, I feel _____.

5/5/2012 4:08:25 PM

horny

5/5/2012 4:55:36 PM

fucked

5/5/2012 10:34:46 PM

it depends on which aspect is more important

like when I was more economically conservative than I am now, I still preferred the Dems because the fundies largely threw their lot in with the other side

5/5/2012 11:12:46 PM

Quote :

"The Republican Party has pretty much abandoned any pretense of being a traditional political party. It’s in lockstep obedience to the very rich, the super rich and the corporate sector. They can’t get votes that way so they have to mobilize a different constituency. It’s always been there, but it’s rarely been mobilized politically. They call it the religious right, but basically it’s the extreme religious population. The US is off the spectrum in religious commitment. It’s been increasing since 1980 but now it’s a major part of the voting base of the Republican Party so that means committing to anti-abortion positions, opposing women’s rights… The US is a country [in which] eighty percent of the population thinks the Bible was written by god. About half think every word is literally true. So it’s had to appeal to that – and to the nativist population, the people that are frightened, have always been… It’s a very frightened country and that’s increasing now with the recognition that the white population is going to be a minority pretty soon, “they’ve taken our country from us.” That’s the Republicans. There are no more moderate Republicans. They are now the centrist Democrats. Of course the Democrats are drifting to the Right right after them. -Noam Chomsky "

5/6/2012 9:45:59 AM

I like the platform overall of the Republican Liberty Caucus, but I know they have had issues in some states because of their stances on homosexual rights, thoughts on military involvement (limited foreign entanglement), being against the failures of the drug war, and other issues.

I went to the RLC national convention 2 years back in DC, and I was amazed by the number of unaffiliated voters... met a couple of registered Democrats there too. Generally a lot of people that are more fiscally conservative (need for more efficient government) and pro-liberty. I guess the term that a lot of people might use is "classic liberal"...

Anyway, its just unfortunate that the Republican Party overall seems to pander and be focused on these "religious" type issues that often lead to more government control (pushing beliefs on others through some form of law or regulation). I am hopefully that it will change, but to me, seems like it keeps going further towards the religious right. As an unaffiliated voter, I often feel "angry" and "let down" by the vast pandering towards the extreme religious elements.

[Edited on May 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM. Reason :  ]

5/6/2012 11:05:48 AM

Quote :

"I like the platform overall of the Republican Liberty Caucus, but I know they have had issues in some states because of their stances on homosexual rights, thoughts on military involvement (limited foreign entanglement), being against the failures of the drug war, and other issues."

I need to clarify... they have had issues with others in the GOP establishment in some states.

For example:

Quote :

"In 2010, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas denounced the new state Republican Party platform that supported criminalization of sodomy and making same-sex marriage a felony."

So, from that, you can see how they butt heads with the GOP establishment in certain states.

5/6/2012 11:44:25 AM

The weird thing about the entire current dumbification of the Republican party is that when taken as a part of the entire population, religion is losing its influence. The number of people who won't affiliate with a religion has plummeted.

This is against a natural gradient from religious people and areas having more children. So the rate of people becoming convinced to abandon religion is quite significant.

It's just that somehow the core have become more touchy and more influential in politics. Sure, it's likely because of demographics, where people aging makes them more geezer-ish. As this is the baby boomer generation, it strikes me as somewhat ironic, since they had at times gone as far as striking from college for a year to protest police state like actions.

5/6/2012 12:27:10 PM

^ Very true... the strange thing is that as people that are religious has declined, the # of evangelical or born-again Christians has actually increased from two other studies I looked at last year.

I am a firm believer in that religion should not impact policy making. Using logic and using sound reasoning (rational) rather than using religious dogma to base your decisions off of. Emotions are another thing that can get in the way, but that is likely another thread topic in itself.

[Edited on May 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM. Reason : grammar ninjas]

5/6/2012 12:40:13 PM

Well there are religious states. Honestly, it depends on the background of the people and history itself. The people have to be convinced through experience that religious governance isn't a good idea. The people of Iran understand this very well, and many Muslim nations are very prickly about religion in government because they've seen what it does.

The United States, on the other hand, had secularism as one of its founding pillars, but it's important to frame this correctly. The secularism that our founding fathers promoted was pro-religion, which was about freedom of religion. Why the fuck would this be important to them? It's because they saw abuses by an amalgamated church-state entity in the name of the religion.

Religion is very open to interpretation, and it doesn't matter what your creed is, it can be bent and twisted to accomplish any agenda. It blows my mind that people completely forget this concept of unscrupulous individuals using piousness to impose on other people who don't believe the interpretation.

Religious interpretation has always always always been used to serve selfish political purposes. Historians actually have examples of different societies that fell or held on dependent on what the religion promoted. Actually, this is a huge part of history. If religion said that divinity came from nature, it was hard to use that rule over people. If religion said that divinity came from the mandate of heaven that the king possessed, then it made for a convenient tool of the ruling class.

You would think that this narrative would be the exception to the rule but it's basically all of society (or at least how it used to be). I mean, holy crap look at Shintoism. It has the sophistication of a hunter-gather pagan religion and basically says "yeah, emperor is god". Japan had to go through some pretty deep shit until they could agree on a quiet consensus that that was all bull crap. It also helped that Japan had competing religion, and today it's about equally Shinto, Buddhist, and Christian. Polytheism isn't the word for this, because they are mutually exclusive. Because the religion doesn't make any intellectual sense, they're all just de-facto atheists with a hodgepodge of traditions.

I would challenge any of the conservatives in NC to enshrine actual Christianity into the constitution. We are not dealing with Christianity, we're dealing with "interpretations" of Christianity ostensibly but in reality it's just cultural traditionalism. Amendment I is vastly more Victorian that it is Christian. It has basically no Christian in it. It is exactly as Christian as King George III was.

Why the FUCK don't conservatives get this?

[Edited on May 6, 2012 at 1:33 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2012 1:29:46 PM

Well ^^ is the same thing that's been happening in politics for the past 40ish years. Each side is becoming more polarized and more defined as time goes on. There is no middle left. As religion becomes such an influential player in American politics, it makes sense that viewpoints would become more polarized along with political ideologies as the ties between each become clearer. Believers in religion flock to one side and politics follows the people. And political secularists flock to the other side in an attempt to use reason instead of faith in policy-making.

Ultimately, this will be bad for both politics and religion. Religion will suffer because people will become more aware of how it's used for controlling people and fall out with their faith. Politics will suffer because so many stupid people are trying to legislate with verse from the Bible. Lose-lose situation for everyone who's not in power.

[Edited on May 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2012 1:39:37 PM

Chris Hedges on this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA_bBrB_TLY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im01ndvWnUE&feature=relmfu

5/6/2012 1:48:51 PM

@ImStoned, I was actually going to bring that up as well. A couple good articles I have read about the polarization of politics via the process of gerrymandering.

I mentioned this in another thread, but the founding fathers and people that came over here had fought religious oppression overseas (maybe not directly, but enough of an impact to influence their ideas). To be succinct, freedom of religion, not freedom to insert religion. The founding fathers got this.

@Mrfrog, I agree with you, well said.

Quote :

"Religious interpretation has always always always been used to serve selfish political purposes. Historians actually have examples of different societies that fell or held on dependent on what the religion promoted."

Politicians will often use religious dogma for some other motive. I personally get sick of it... sighs

5/6/2012 2:19:43 PM

Schwarzenegger wrote a pretty interesting op ed on this recently

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-oe-schwarzenegger-gop-needs-to-be-more-inclusiv-20120506,0,178448.story

[Edited on May 7, 2012 at 5:11 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2012 5:07:15 AM

Quote :

"Republican Liberty Caucus"

Never heard of this... but these guys (from your posts) sound like my flavor of Republican... I'll have to check them out. Get that religion shit out of my party.

[Edited on May 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM. Reason : .]

5/7/2012 8:46:53 AM

Good luck. You're gonna need it since the religious people make up half of the party.

5/7/2012 2:39:54 PM

much better IMO to stick with the Dems

5/7/2012 2:47:28 PM

The fact that "fiscal liberalism" is an actual thing bewilders me. In countries like Canada, where social programs are more prevalent than in the U.S., they still focus on balancing the budget. This new era where deficits allegedly don't matter will be relatively short-lived.

The real leaders of the GOP are not fundamentalist Christians. Dick Cheney never gave a fuck about Jesus and he never will. He cares about money and power.

Religiously-motivated political factions in the United States are driven by delusion, but they are highly motivated and they will vote Republican, assuming the Republican supports federal enforcement of "traditional values" and the slaughter of non-whites outside of "Christendom". On the other hand, minorities and poor people have been effectively duped by the Democratic party, so they are the loyal constituency on the other side. The end result is two parties working for the same corporations, working tirelessly to maintain an illusion of choice.

Anyone that campaigns on an anti-corporatist platform should be recognized as a departure from the mainstream and should be supported if possible. It's correct to acknowledge sinister nature of the GOP. It's incorrect to conclude that your support is better placed in the DNC.

5/7/2012 3:08:04 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand, minorities and poor people have been effectively duped by the Democratic party, so they are the loyal constituency on the other side"

Some of them, yes. But I think a sleeping majority of them just don't vote.

But I actually agree with most of your points, which is why I'm constantly bewildered when you think the Republican party is capable of fundamentally changing their priorities. Or maybe you don't? You've been absent in the Ron Paul thread, but that just might be because retards have taken over that discussion.

5/7/2012 3:18:57 PM

There are some indications that the Republican party can be commandeered. Ron Paul has won the majority of delegates in multiple states now, which gives Ron Paul supporters control over the RNC in that state, essentially. I'm not in the business of saying what is and isn't possible. If libertarian-esque people can get power within the GOP, that's a good thing for both parties because it's going to mean drifting away from social conservatism and support for the military industrial complex.

The GOP establishment is resisting this movement, but there's only so much they can do when droves of Ron Paul supporters come out and aim to take over the process. Ron Paul will probably not win in 2012, but the libertarian movement isn't going anywhere.

5/7/2012 3:26:14 PM

The GOP establishment is not interested in popular support, and they're heavily financed by billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, who profit and steer the direction into pro-war stances and military intervention. They each have more money than the rest of the party members combined. The party is so damned corrupt, that they would easily suppress democratic (majority) support of a libertarian candidate in the off chance that they actually won or brokered the RNC. And that's to say nothing of the droves of mouth-breathing religious folk who are politically active, and policy ignorant who will vote for the farthest right-wing politician available.

Honestly, it would be easier to reverse the earth's orbit than to change the Republican party. And sadly, the Democratic party is not far behind.

I know you know this.

5/7/2012 3:34:46 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand, minorities and poor people have been effectively duped by the Democratic party, so they are the loyal constituency on the other side. The end result is two parties working for the same corporations, working tirelessly to maintain an illusion of choice. Anyone that campaigns on an anti-corporatist platform should be recognized as a departure from the mainstream and should be supported if possible. It's correct to acknowledge sinister nature of the GOP. It's incorrect to conclude that your support is better placed in the DNC."

Agreed. That's why I'm so bewildered at the fact that you support corporate money influencing elections. I know you argue it based on your ideology and FAR left attitudes toward civil liberties, but when the end result of a policy is the complete and total corruption of the political system, the government has the right and the duty to enact policies to combat that result.

It started in 2000. Only 9 people total had their votes matter in that election and they all voted straight ticket. Then it got worse when swiftboating was declared legal. And finally, complete and total domination of the political system was achieved in 2010, the year the BCRA was completely gutted. We are now in the midst of a corporate oligarchy, and it was made possible by some very dangerous and incredibly liberal decisions by the Supreme Court. It's fucking open season on the Constitution from both parties until Citizen United gets overturned and we get some actual transparency and fairness back into the election process. The government has a duty to protect democracy from being squashed. It matters not where your ideological beliefs lie on this issue, only that you support a repeal of anonymous money corrupting our politics.

I could get down on a [more] fiscally conservative agenda if it weren't for the utterly deplorable social policies of the Republican Party. And that's how a lot of other people feel too. The Republican Party is splintering, make no mistake. It's only a matter of time. People need to abandon this husk of a GOP. There is definitely some sort of a political realignment going on right now and we won't know exactly what it is for another decade or two. I am certain there will be three distinct parties in the near future. The Christian National Socialists, a Liberty Party, and a Socialist Welfare Party. The Republicans are dead, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see the Democrats go down soon after.

5/7/2012 5:13:19 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, it would be easier to reverse the earth's orbit than to change the Republican party. And sadly, the Democratic party is not far behind. I know you know this."

I don't know it. I suspect that it may be true, but I'm not seeing many options on the table. The same establishment that would prevent takeover of the party would prevent the rise of a third party.

Quote :

"Agreed. That's why I'm so bewildered at the fact that you support corporate money influencing elections. I know you argue it based on your ideology and FAR left attitudes toward civil liberties, but when the end result of a policy is the complete and total corruption of the political system, the government has the right and the duty to enact policies to combat that result. "

Corporate money influencing elections is not a new thing. It has literally been going on since the founding of the country. Corporations or other moneyed interests have a profound impact on the legislative process, so whatever campaign finance reform occurs will be influenced by the powers it is meant to curtail.

Citizens United gets mentioned a lot, but ultimately, that ruling did not apply to actual campaign contributions. It was about the publication of media that seemed to support one candidate over the other. I won't support any attempt to suppress free speech in the name of "political fairness", but even if there are good intentions, the legislation will eventually be used to crush legitimate discourse.

Campaign finance is the darling of U.S. progressives, but it misses the main problem: a government large enough to crack down on these practices you and I disapprove of also has the power to abuse and be abused. It's a natural progression for sociopaths to take the reigns of government and steer it in a direction that benefits them. I don't believe that humans are inherently good or bad, but I do accept that some people are able to manipulate others effectively while simultaneously feeling no remorse. These are the people most likely to end up in positions of power. Most people just want to live their lives and be left alone, and they are not likely to run for office.

[Edited on May 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ]

5/7/2012 5:29:37 PM

Quote :

"Citizens United gets mentioned a lot, but ultimately, that ruling did not apply to actual campaign contributions."

I know you are not that daft and ill-informed. I know it for a fact. Please do me the favor of not insulting my policy knowledge on this issue. Regardless of whether campaign contributions were changed or not, the implications of Citizens United are vast and wholly corruptive. I would rather have corporations contribute unlimited funds directly to campaigns and make all electioneering communications legal than the shadowy, pseudo-democratic elections we have now. At least that way they would have to disclose their corporate sponsors.

I just wrote a research paper on this topic. I will debate this with you all day. This is one of the most critical issues facing the country at the moment. Absolutely nothing will get better until this is fixed.

5/7/2012 5:43:43 PM

Both the GOP and DNC (overall) are not poster boys or champions of anything to be honest. I get sick of politics, but since it impacts my finances, spending, and way of life, I have to comment on it from time to time.

Quote :

"a government large enough to crack down on these practices you and I disapprove of also has the power to abuse and be abused. It's a natural progression for sociopaths to take the reigns of government and steer it in a direction that benefits them."

5/7/2012 5:59:53 PM

Surely you didn't write a paper on the vast, shadowy implications of Citizens United?

Here's an exercise: think of the ways that a law prohibiting "political speech"/"broadcast electioneering" could be abused when the wrong people get in office. The enforcement of such a law is totally arbitrary. Ideally, it'd be used on commercials produced by corporations supporting their favorite candidate. In the future, it could just as easily be used to justify shutting down Youtube accounts.

5/7/2012 6:02:36 PM

What matters more? How it COULD be used for corruption or how the current system IS corrupted? You're using a strawman. I'm not debating hypotheticals, I'm debating current realities.

5/7/2012 6:10:59 PM

What matters more to me is how it will be abused. Good intentions, road to hell, etc.

Banning political commercials, aside from being a violation of free speech, will not curb corporate influence enough to offset potential abuses. Not when Monsanto basically controls the ADA. Not when pharmaceutical giants control the FDA. Not when the private prison industry guides drug policy.

You're correct that corporate influence on the political process is out of control, but prohibiting commercials is not going to change that. The primary battle is against corporate lobbying. I've concluded that it's impossible to beat corporate lobbies, so the next best thing is to strip the federal government of the power that corporate lobbyists seek to control.

5/7/2012 6:23:14 PM

power doesn't exist in a vacuum.

you can try to dismantle the government, but you're just going to dismantle the only democratic structure that could potentially limit the concentration of power and influence.

5/7/2012 6:40:51 PM

I'm not interested in dismantling all government right now, just the federal government. The U.S. federal government has proven itself to be completely untrustworthy and corrupt to the core.

I do support some federal candidates, but only the ones that I feel will deliberately take away power from the federal government. A more decentralized system would follow, not unlike the collapse of the USSR. Some states and regions would be complete shitholes. Other places would be awesome - populations would shift as a result. Latin American and South American countries could be rid of drug cartels and the people there wouldn't have to fear for their lives every day.

5/7/2012 6:49:25 PM

is there a reason why you don't view corporate power with the same critical eye as you do government? that's a serious question. you seem perfectly capable of speaking about decentralized power when it comes to government, but you always skirt the issue of outside actors (corporations) coming in to absorb the vacated power.

Ron Paul does this, too, and it irritates the hell out of me. I'd be much more willing to listen to him if he proposed an alternative, but he never does.

5/7/2012 6:54:57 PM

related to my prior points randomly....

This is a good series overall, but in this video is the role of the mandate of heaven in China.



So basically, create a religious / moral supremacy argument for your side in a conflict and you can make history. Only problem is that it backfires when you hold orgies. Could anything sum up the Republican party better?

Quote :

"is there a reason why you don't view corporate power with the same critical eye as you do government?"

Quote :

"Ron Paul does this, too, and it irritates the hell out of me. I'd be much more willing to listen to him if he proposed an alternative, but he never does."

I share the same criticisms. Although, I recognize the 'alternative' part isn't so easy. Paul's entire world view is that he, himself, doesn't have the answers and doesn't claim to. In a sense, I don't want him to propose such things - but I do think we need to establish hotbeds of controlled but radically permissive laws to allow a real free market and distributed governance model to emerge.

5/8/2012 12:36:27 AM

Quote :

"much better IMO to stick with the Dems"

They're as bad as the Reps.

5/8/2012 1:06:44 PM

would still like a response

5/8/2012 2:46:39 PM

I typed something up at home and apparently didn't click "Post Reply!"

I view corporations and government with a skeptical eye, but they have different natures. Corporations exist to make a profit. If they don't make a profit, they can't gather capital, and they can't get power.

Government doesn't care about making a profit. The government only has to be perceived as legitimate to hold onto power. As long as that perception remains, the government can tax and has an unlimited source of revenue. Ideally, the government uses the money to pay for protections and services that benefit the population. Usually, people will go along with this. It's during this golden period that government amasses weaponry, usually with the stated purpose of "national defense", but with the actual purpose of state preservation. The development and manufacturing of these weapons are not profitable by any means (bullets and bombs destroy and get destroyed), but since the government doesn't care about profit, that isn't a problem. These weapons are used for large, national-scale heists. If, at any point, the perception of legitimacy fades, the weapons are turned on the citizens that paid for them, as we've seen here in the U.S. and countless times in human history.

It's only through taxation that wars can be waged. The larger the taxable population is, the more weapons can be built and the more wars can be waged. This is the purpose of empires. They're an ever-expanding state focused on self-preservation.

I focus on decentralization because I don't believe that government has to be bad. I don't want a society with no justice, no education, no bridges, etc. But, what I want even less is a government so massive that it can assemble a military capable of wrecking everything.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 3:04:39 PM

If we let corporations obtain as much profit as they wanted, they would buy armies too. History proves that. The difference is that a corporate military would have even less compassion than a government military.

5/8/2012 3:41:47 PM

Quote :

"If we let corporations obtain as much profit as they wanted, they would buy armies too. History proves that. The difference is that a corporate military would have even less compassion than a government military."

What part of history are you referencing?

5/8/2012 4:12:17 PM

it's not about governments being compassionate. but at least a government has to answer to voters (in theory, anyway).

private interests are, by definition, antithetical to the concept of democracy.



[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 4:18:33 PM

Individual interests are private interests. There are those that will benefit from democracy and those that will suffer, just as there are the mugged and the muggers.

5/8/2012 4:26:59 PM

ummmm...okaaay?

So what exactly are you advocating for? Every man for himself?

5/8/2012 9:40:19 PM

Quote :

"By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40% on the original investment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

From a time before the rise of powerful national governments, which is exactly what would happen if the world was allowed to devolve into the chaos your policies would create.

5/9/2012 1:30:45 AM

And why did they buy an army? To secure a way to make even more money. Do companies need to buy an army to make more money or can they just buy a few representatives?

5/9/2012 12:37:57 PM

Quote :

"ummmm...okaaay? So what exactly are you advocating for? Every man for himself?"

Nope. I'm advocating freedom of association and voluntary organization.

5/9/2012 1:02:58 PM

okay. so you're cool with unchecked corporate power.

5/9/2012 1:43:31 PM

I don't think there is such a thing as unchecked power. As I said, corporations are limited by profit. Greed is countered by risk. Our problems come about when risk is removed from the market.

5/9/2012 2:59:53 PM

Quote :

"And why did they buy an army? To secure a way to make even more money. Do companies need to buy an army to make more money or can they just buy a few representatives?"

That's a problem of lack of accountability and policies which perpetuate the military-industrial complex, not the government itself. Tougher lobbying laws, more oversight of the executive branch by Congress, and banning for-profit corporations from influencing candidates would solve all of these problems and many more.

Quote :

"I don't think there is such a thing as unchecked power. As I said, corporations are limited by profit. Greed is countered by risk. Our problems come about when risk is removed from the market."

What about oil companies and tech companies? Oil is basically guaranteed to be profitable and tech companies like Apple can create virtually risk-free products. Would Apple have been allowed to flourish if Microsoft hadn't been slapped with antitrust lawsuits? Red Hat? The only thing stopping companies from cornering entire markets is the threat of government intervention.

I also kindly request that you address my corporate army submission.

5/9/2012 3:36:07 PM

Quote :

"What part of history are you referencing?"

Could be this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan

But there are a lot of others, so maybe this isn't it.

5/9/2012 4:13:56 PM

Quote :

"I also kindly request that you address my corporate army submission."

I don't think VOC is the example you want to use. They were literally granted a monopoly by the Dutch parliament. Again, monopolies only exist when the government creates them. The free market allows for too many "niche industries" and true monopolies are impossible to establish.

Quote :

"What about oil companies and tech companies? Oil is basically guaranteed to be profitable and tech companies like Apple can create virtually risk-free products. Would Apple have been allowed to flourish if Microsoft hadn't been slapped with antitrust lawsuits? Red Hat? The only thing stopping companies from cornering entire markets is the threat of government intervention."

Oil is not guaranteed to be profitable. Many oil ventures have gone bankrupt.

Tech is the worst example you could use, I believe. There are so many players in the market. They might not have the same market share as Microsoft or Apple, but they still have a significant impact on the market. Again, markets just can't be cornered unless the government is doing the heavy lifting.

5/9/2012 4:15:43 PM

you might want to look into United Fruit Company, or hell...even those old west virginia coal companies who literally owned the entire town.


Anyway, your answers, just like Ron Paul's, skirt critical examination of what your policies would entail, and always romanticize the idea of anarchy by assuming that the market is somehow an incorruptible construct.

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 4:54 PM. Reason : ]

5/9/2012 4:47:30 PM

Tech was a bad example, you right. But there ARE industries that do have to engage in fairly small risk to make money.

I agree that monopolies are often aided by government policies. But I disagree that there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. What would have happened if Microsoft had been allowed to buy up all the start-ups in the 90s without the government stepping in? They could have done it too. If there were no federal government stronger than them, what's to stop them from going on and buying out every single one of their competitors before they get large enough to compete? Or employing an army of hackers and spies to steal their information even more cheaply and get it to market faster?

I don't know how you can say monopolies wouldn't exist. What about the later 1800s in the United States? Almost every single large-scale industry was dominated by an industry tycoon. It was detrimental to consumers, workers, and everyone but the industry capitalists. This was a time before massive government intervention in the economy. They only got broken up when the federal government established the power to do so. Monopolies are most readily formed when there is government complacency.

5/9/2012 4:52:50 PM