There are exactly two monopolies mentioned in the US Constitution, and they exist to counterbalance one another. They are copyrights & the Library of Congress.
So you don't think Post Offices count? The Constitution enumerates that authority specifically.
You've misread it. The Constitution granted Congress the power to establish postal routes and post offices, but not necessarily as a monopoly on postal delivery as a service.
"The Clause has been construed to give Congress the enumerated power to designate mail routes and construct or designate post offices, with the
implied authority to carry, deliver, and regulate the mails of the United States as a whole. An early controversy was whether Congress had the power to actually build post roads and post offices, or merely designate which lands and roads were to be used for this purpose, and to what extent that power could be delegated to the Postmaster General.[6] The U.S. Supreme Court construed the power narrowly during the early part of the 19th century, holding that the power consisted mostly of designation of roads and sites, but gradually gave way later on, allowing appropriation of land for postal purposes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_ClauseIronicly, prior to the
implied monopoly interpretation, the delivery of mail in the colonies, as well as pretty much all of Europe as far as I am aware, was performed by private contractors. It wasn't until John Quincy Adams was elected president that the concept of the post offices & postal roads as an intergrated communications system as we know it today became popular, due to JQA's public speaches on the improvements of national infrastructure, for which he considered a coherent, and federally regulated, postal service to be a paramount part. Both his father, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were appalled at the idea of a United States Postal
Service. Jefferson believed the USPS would be a institution of political patronage. Neither the framers of the Constitution, nor the delegates that debated and voted upon this clause, ever imagined that the postal clause authorized a publicly supported enterprise with a state monopoly.
Furthermore, the USPS has had very real competitors in the past, as well as the present. Some were ran out of business, others still exist. UPS is just one example.
And I still think the military counts.
You can think what you like, but you asked
me to defend your belief. So, no.
As does our voting infrastructure and a handful of other services for which the the US federal government is the sole service provider.
I'll grant you the voting infrastructure, although there are better ways to do even that today. What other services do you consider the US Federal government to be the sole provider, and why do you think they are natural monopolies again?
Firefighting on federal lands.
Is actually performed by a variety of providers, including private contractors and state fire departments.
Tax collection.
Does not qualify as a public service. Is arguablely theft by fiat, but not a service. Certainly not one that a free market would demand.
Interstate highways.
Are legally justified by the 'postal roads' clause mentioned above, but were neither constructed by, nor currently maintained by, federal employees. Also not a service, per se. Roads are infrastructure. The body of work debunking the "who will build the roads?" complaint against libertarian thought is massive. If you really are interested in this debate, this alone will require a new thread.
Tribal liasons.
Wait, what?
Regulating airwaves.
Only because there is an international treaty that requires it. The electromatic spectrum is a tragedy of the commons in so many ways. Also, not really a service; at least not one the free market would demand. The early history of the radio broadcasting industry is rather interesting in it's own right. We still lumber along with the lingering effects of the anti-competitive actions of huge corporations using laws as a bludgen to eliminate their smaller competitors during that time.
Nuclear waste repositories.
Not one of which has been built by the Federal government, despite a legal requirement to do so. Every single nuclear waste repository in the United States is privately owned by some power company. Period.
Unemployment insurance.
Not a monopoly. I have private unemployment insurance as part of my work benefits package.
Space exploration, until very recently.
Why did you bother? And only due to the cost of the technology, which could be argued was a natural monopolies for super-power governments due to the incredible up front costs. But like all natural monopolies, it was a temporary market condition.
There all kinds of things that the US has decreed they alone will provide, without competition from the private sector, because they provide for the general welfare and need doing regardless of profit motive.
That they decreed? Well, sure. But that isn't a natural monopoly by definition.
I don't agree. Medicare works. I don't agree that it works well. That said, Medicare is not a monopoly. It's another form of subsidized health insurance, with state by state differences.
As discussed above, the form of "single-payer" that most people want is closer to expanded Medicare than the Candadian monopoly model (which also grew out of their version of Medicare). Care is still provided by private practices, but a government negotiates pricing and simplifies billing. It could still be run by each state instead of the feds (also like Canada). Would still be a huge improvement over what we had before, and probably over what we have now.
I don't agree with any of what you just said above.
Even our military isn't a monopoly, even if it's the only option our government chooses to exercise.
I'm not sure that a never-used clause in the Constitution negates the practical effects of the US military's monopoly on national defense.
It has been used.
We'll never see Blackwater successfully petition Congress for funding, they only work at the request of US military command.
So? Is Blackwater something different than a privately paid, trained and equipt army?
A natural monopoly is one thing, but if a law needs to be passed, it's not an example of a natural monopoly.
That seems a subtle distinction. The Constitution itself had to be passed, after all, like any other law.
Subtle, perhaps. But a distinction nonetheless. The method by which the US Constitution was
ratified was an order of magnitude more complex, and more democratic, than anything that has happened since. Even an amendment is easier, and no amendment could pass today; even many that actually exist.
They are not as good at their job as it might appear from afar.
I agree that our military is sometimes grossly inefficient. Fortunately they have such heaping piles of money that they've managed to be the most effective fighting force on the planet despite a whole host of internal problems.
That was your money, not their money. Governments have no money honestly earned.
I don't think any other nation, or even coalition of nations, could seriously challenge the US military. That's a relatively recent development and it won't last forever, but it's the state of the world today.
If war is economics by other means, then that day will come sooner than later.