Competition in government granted monopolies (ahem "Franchise Agreements"). Good one!
That's why we must preserve what little is left, for its rarity makes it finite and precious.
I like that better than adopting a defeatist attitude and assuming all is lost.
That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.
The FTC does not, and should not, do summary rejections. Even evil corporations have a right to due process.
In general I would agree with you, but not in this case. That they are natural monopolies would be grounds for a summary rejection. There's no reason that cannot be a special exception.
Who said this was approved? Answer: nobody.
That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.
A summary rejection, now that would demonstrate the slightest concern for preserving competition.
What I observe with the majority of people: they are fully capable of being free-thinking individuals, but the main way they use this capability is to follow the crowd.
With herd animals that are prey creatures (i.e. cattle, sheep) this makes sense in terms of survival. There is safety in numbers. Stray from the herd, and you get targeted by ever-present predators.
With humans, who are at the top of the food chain and generally have no natural predators, it's just a form of cowardice. I'm not sure the DNA of fruit flies is going to provide a satisfying explanation here, at least not one that can be extrapolated to include people, fascinating though it may be.
Who DOESN'T want minimal government? Even communists and fascists think the policies they support are necessary, and mainstream Republicrats think their policies prevent market failures. I have never met anyone who identified as an "excessarchist", only folks who believe everyone else is being excessive.
Specifically, I am referring to a return to federalism, with the vast majority of citizens' government coming from the state and local levels. You know, the way this system was intended to work.
it appears that their thought process is, "I'm getting what I want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else."
Much like the people who buy meat that isn't technically fit for human consumption.
Or any soy product that has not been fermented...
These people randomly speed up and slow down because of changing slope of the road. No one is really paying attention to their speed, and they don't realize that you have to push the pedal a little harder uphill and less downhill to maintain speed.
Most of the time that's correct, but I see it with surprising frequency on level terrain. I think most of them are simply not paying full attention to the road; perhaps they're fiddling with a cell phone.
It's the same reason people sometimes fail to notice that the light has turned green. I mean, why should they pay attention, it's not like they're *driving* or anything...
At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?
There is, but we don't consider it when deciding whether to provide medical treatment or not. We punish illegal activity in court not in hospital.
Apparently this is confusing some of you. So I'll explain how it works in the USA.
Hypothetically, let's say you cause a car accident, as in this imaginary accident is 100% your fault. As a result of this accident, another person is injured and requires medical care. Your own car insurance policy has a line item called Bodily Injury Coverage. That coverage would pay for the injured person's medical expenses.
The injured person would not file a claim with their health insurance company (assuming they have one) because you, as the person who caused the accident, are held responsible for any expenses you caused to the injured person.
I was simply asking if car insurance works that way overseas. Instead of a private insurance company that you may or may not have, you have NHS. While the NHS is provided as a public service, the care they provide does have a cost. I wanted to know if NHS bears that cost even when there is an at-fault party who caused the problem, or whether in those specific cases, the at-fault party (via their car insurance liability policy) was expected to cover it.
Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.