Hacker News Reader

Comment by DarkNova6 | Hacker News Reader

I'd like to think that it's twice as good as a one-party system.

Not sure whether you're serious or joking, but in the realm of economics, I think that duopolies are actually worse than monopolies, because everyone recognizes that a monopoly needs to be strictly regulated and/or broken up, whereas when there's a duopoly, that's supposedly "competition" and thus the duopolies largely escape regulation or breakup, even if they implicitly or explicitly cooperate and coordinate to crush any other competition.

In the same way, the obvious solution to a one-party system is to overthrow the government, whereas with a two-party system, you're supposed to fight within the system... and mostly accomplish nothing, because those in power have overlapping interests.

>because everyone recognizes that a monopoly needs to be strictly regulated and/or broken up

And who's gonna do that when the government has a monopoly?

> the government has a monopoly

What do you mean exactly? This seems a little too vague.

Breaking up a monopoly requires some external entity that has power over the monopoly. There is no such entity for government.

So as bad as a two party government is one party would likely be way worse.

I said, comparing a political monopoly to an economic monopoly, "In the same way, the obvious solution to a one-party system is to overthrow the government"

The "external entity" is the people in revolution against the government. This was how the US itself was founded, in revolution against the existing monarchy.

It’s double plus good!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com