[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
this OP was either a massive level (unlikely) or well-intentioned but very poorly executed. Fortunately, some good dialog on what our country should or should not be has resulted from it.

In response to the OP asking what type of ideology he is describing... it seems to me that he is ironically employing a powerful state apparatus in order to ensure that a powerful state apparatus never emerges. Unfortunately, its not the sort of delightful paradox that works. If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market.

Milton Friedman, in his book Free to Choose, said that if he had to choose between a government monopoly or a private monopoly he'd choose the private one, and he actually questioned if such a thing could really exist, as in a free market, there will always be competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole idea is to increase competition. What about my post would not serve to increase competition? Yes, I'm taking away the freedom to have a media monopoly (and use it to gain a political monopoly) but I'm not regulating what can be said, making equal time provisions or any of the like. I'm preventing a single person from being able to "buy" an election...that's true.

We have more of a plutocracy in this country now rather than a truly representative republic. I mean, you don't see many non-statists in Congress or the executive.