[dfee]

While I understand your sentiment, "free market" folk generally exclude "government-provided" from that notion. This is because those services are often coupled with sector-wide regulations that are counter to laissez faire principles, the government is able to subsidize operational costs against its tax base (unfair competition that distorts the market), and other such complexities.

[agumonkey]

Federal absurd regulations are commie-scandalous while lobby absurd regulation are just fine ?

It's always the same. People don't see, don't control, when they try, resistance is so high they will cave before change occurs.

[conanbatt]

> Federal absurd regulations are commie-scandalous while lobby absurd regulation are just fine ?

Laissez fair would generally say all regulations are bad. Regulations that help monopolies are one of the main reasons free market advocates are againt regulations. All regulations start with "good intentions".

Comcast and phone companies are great examples of monopolies that are protected by the State, not failures of free market advocates.

[agumonkey]

You're right and that part of the point. State or Market is not the factor here. This old opposition is a false dichotomy / semantic slip. Control/Opacity are more important.

[muninet]

Ah yes, because corporations obviously don’t do any of those things (all of which are enabled by governments anyway).

[dfee]

I think you nailed it with “government enablement”. Free market folks probably aren’t so different from you. Unless we’re talking about wolves in sheeps clothing, they oughta be vehemently against those actions you allude to.

It’s the folk in the middle (on both the govt and corp sides) that benefit from the foul play. Both sides might call these “defensive actions”, but it’s often just tit-for-tat greed.

[greymeister]

It depends on whether "government-provided" means that you now pay for it whether you wanted the service or not. If I don't pay my cable bill I lose my cable. If I don't pay my taxes...