Tying: Using monopoly power to dominate complementary markets (Machulak). For example- if I'm dominating the flour market and want to get a foothold in the sugar market I might sell those two products together. Recent cases against Microsoft in the US and Europe illustrate how this practice is frowned upon in the economic world.
Similar practices can be found in the political world...
One might piggyback a personal project onto a bill that is otherwise very strong in order to pull it through. In a less clearly objectionable case the public may elect a politician due to his/her popular stance on many issues and accept her/his less popular stances on less critical issues.
There is no way that I see to mix and match the attributes of many politicians into one super-candidate or eliminate effects of the nature discussed above without fundamentally redesigning our system; is it also necessary that this platform phenomenon extends to the ubiquitous political parties and through those to our very identities?
Though this political 'tying' cannot be attributed the stigmata of a monopoly that is only a mitigating factor to the central issue that it takes power away from the people.
One important check to the towering (I almost said monolithic) bipartisan structure is regionalism- the democratic parties of two different states may differ on many points and that difference is seen even more acutely across the borders of nations.
But Wikipedia is global. Wikipedia takes its homogenized (if subtle) political 'consensus' everywhere, and the emergence of sites countering that agenda only exacerbate that problem, taking power away from the individual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment