[hirundo]

> At least with governments you get a representative.

At least with corporations you get a choice, short of emigrating. Google is one of the most dominant corporations in the world, yet there are multiple alternatives to most of their services.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

There is often only choice in the market because government regulators prevent absolute monopolies from happening.

[sol_remmy2]

Disagree, the most monopolistic sectors in the economy (education, telecommunications, health care) are also the most highly regulated.

Some states don't even have charter schools, can you believe that?? They only have one choice for schooling from grade K-12

[magduf]

>Some states don't even have charter schools, can you believe that?? They only have one choice for schooling from grade K-12

This is complete BS. Private schools have always existed, and still do. On top of that, homeschooling is legal.

[nichohel]

And how many people can pay for schooling their children twice, once for the the public school they aren't using, and then again for a private school? Or, afford to not work and homeschool their children?

[nullc]

> And how many people can pay for schooling their children twice, once for the the public school they aren't using, and then again for a private school?

That wouldn't be paying for it twice... it would be paying for it like 1.1 times because of the large number of house holds that have no children in public school and still pay taxes.

:)

[magduf]

Who cares? That's irrelevant. You stated, quite clearly, that there is only "one choice". You're wrong about that, as I pointed out: there's multiple choices. I never said any of them were free.

[nichohel]

I'm sorry, what did I say? You may have confused me with someone else.

[et2o]

This is completely and factually wrong, you should delete.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

The highly regulated ones are natural monopolies that shouldn't be private at all.

[ClumsyPilot]

Complete non-sequitor. A corporation can make a choice that causes misery. By the time the consequences of this corporate decision precipitate, it becomes too late to make a choice.

Case in point: 300 people killed by Boeing and 100 people dead in the fire in Grenfell tower in UK.

On the contrary, a representative might amend/revere the situation, for example by changing the law.

[ryanwaggoner]

It’s ironic to talk about how corporations cause destruction in people’s lives in a way governments don’t, and then bring up hundreds of deaths as an example. Those deaths are tragic to be sure, but how many tens of millions of people have died at the hands of their governments in the last century?

[ClumsyPilot]

I dont think counting deaths caused by dictators addresses my point.

How do we make it an apples to apples comparison? For example,today, 2 million people a year die from air pollution, who is to blame for those deaths?

What about drug cartels, do we count the deaths that occurred in fighting them 'against' government? But if the government did not exist, those deaths would be higher, so do we count 'prevented deaths'? What about tabacco, etc. I dont think a realistic tally can be made.

[pjc50]

Equating Stalin and the DMV is the kind of category error that prevents Americans from having good service at the DMV.

[ryanwaggoner]

You’re the only one making such a comparison

[ClumsyPilot]

You left an open-ended question, so you can't now complain that people interpreted it differently than what you intended.