[Truth To Power]

[BC hydro] was created by a private citizen and stolen off him by the government. So whatever you think it represents of government efficiency it better represents government larceny.

Nonsense. By the time it was nationalized (with compensation), the private utility had been using public watercourses to generate power under government auspices. The private company was too inefficient and capital-poor to expand its capacity without government help, so the government took it over. It has been far more efficient since then.

2. The company now is horrendously in debt, so apparently the govs aren't even managing it that well.

For the last decade or so it has been used as a cash cow, especially by the former right-wing government, and its operational efficiency has been sacrificed to a combination of environmental virtue signalling and corrupt subsidies to private power companies: it has been forced to buy power from private "environmentally sustainable" producers at far above market rates.

[Truth To Power]

The whole concept of property relies on monopoly.

Nonsense. Property in the fruits of one's labor has nothing to do with monopoly.

How does one become the owner, the legal monopolist of land or other scarce resources?

You mean natural resources? By legal fiat. But if you mean scarce products of labor, you become their owner by producing them, or paying someone who did.

How does one become the owner, the legal monopolist of goods produced with scarce resources?

By producing them or paying their producer. Property in products of labor does not deprive anyone of anything they would otherwise have. Property in natural resources does. The former is therefore valid, the latter not.

[Patrickov]

Let the market decide whether, when, where, how, or even how long legal monopolies can exist.

At the end, no one can monopolise resources or services forever.

[B0ycey]

Let the market decide whether, when, where, how, or even how long legal monopolies can exist.

At the end, no one can monopolise resources or services forever.

Not true. Governments could monopolise their sectors for as long as they liked but most sell off their assets as it is profitable for them to do so and then open up the sectors to new markets. But if you look at rail in the UK, you can clearly see privatisation does not equate to cheaper and better services BTW. So why would any rail user (the market) demand privatisation?

Because of the many government "fuck ups" in privatisation attempts, it is safe to say that if any UK party tried to do likewise with the NHS as they did with rail they might as well declare themselves no longer a political party as nobody is going to vote for them ever again.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I voted for NO monopolies at all.

This is because there could be no monopolies under a state of nature and the only reason monopolies exist today is because of that first monopoly on coercion called the state. If there were no state, no patent law, and no copyright law, there would be no monopolies or crony super-corporations.

Praxeological analysis confirms these claims as a matter of plain reason.

[Truth To Power]

Not true. Governments could monopolise their sectors for as long as they liked but most sell off their assets as it is profitable for them to do so and then open up the sectors to new markets. But if you look at rail in the UK, you can clearly see privatisation does not equate to cheaper and better services BTW. So why would any rail user (the market) demand privatisation?

Because of the many government "fuck ups" in privatisation attempts, it is safe to say that if any UK party tried to do likewise with the NHS as they did with rail they might as well declare themselves no longer a political party as nobody is going to vote for them ever again.

Unfortunately, few people on either the left or the right seem to understand the economic difference between natural monopolies like transport infrastructure and hydrological projects, which are most efficiently built and operated as public utilities, competitive products and services that have market failure characteristics like health care and education, which are most efficiently produced privately but (at least in part) funded publicly, and pure competitive market goods like food, cars, clothing, etc., which are most efficiently provided by private producers to privately paying customers.