Please read again...and write again, reading what you write before submitting. I can't follow your first paragraph. What little I can understand completely ignores what I wrote and makes stuff up to argue against.

I didn't say atheists have a monopoly on morality, I said morality doesn't come from religions, and atheists are more moral than religious people. I gave clear statistics about criminal behavior to prove my point.
EDIT:It seems you are saying if it's not religious in origin, the only thing left is political affiliation!? OMFG! That's so wrong I don't know where to start, I hope I just misunderstand you.
Reading/writing comprehension matters.
read my last paragraph in the post above...you exhibit those symptoms.

The answer to all your demographic questions, the religious group.
Religious 'morality' allows for murder, rape, and slavery of the non devout, and so is more responsible for the decline, and for many of the schisms in society.
You watch too much fox news, liberals don't 'control all major media and schools'. "Conservatives" (which are not conservative, they want to be more 'progressive' than liberals by "going back" to a time that never existed) never shut up pushing their insane, debunked ideas day and night. Their morality supports slavery and rape and wage disparity so disastrous that it may lead to class warfare. (how you treat the least of your brethren...etc.)
(EDIT: also investigate the saying 'eat the rich'-Jean-Jacques Rousseau )

More abortions for Christians than atheists, they can't be seen haveing out of wedlock children and many can't use birth control.
Abstinence only sex-ed actually promotes pre-marital sex (if you look at the results).
Christians have more adulterous affairs... for entertainment, and more divorce too.
Religious 'morality' is all 'morality decided by self'. (You don't stone non Christians or people who work on Sunday, do you? If not, you absolutely don't take your morality from the bible.)
Religion totally enslaves the poor.

Any other fallacies you need me to destroy?

A single-payer system is called a monopsony. It can be as bad as a monopoly.

goddamnit!!

Fifa, proving once again that the NFL don't have a monopoly on dickheads running a sport.

replaced with lower quality version

The "sides" may not have a monopoly, but one of the two official teams has worked exceedingly diligently to get rid of anyone who believes "fair" might involve anything resembling a compromise.

I'm on the side of fairness and equality of treatment.
I don't feel that any 'side' has a monopoly on those, but some 'sides' are worse than others.
I'm a terrible team player.

Police have a government monopoly and monopolies never provide the best service to their customers. Only when there is real competition will things change. Search for 'voluntaryism', 'polycentric law', and 'machinery of freedom'.

Coincidentally, North Carolina also has a state-run monopoly on its liquor sales, and NC average teacher salaries have declined by fifteen percent over the past decade.

If I were cynical, I might even say NC is deliberately cultivating stupid people as a resource.

Is English a second language, or are you just being disingenuous? Me thinks the latter. No...publicly owned roads are NOT toll roads because they are paid for with taxes. Taxes and tolls are different things, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently. I live on a private road..so I'm certain they must exist.
It is absolutely NOT illegal to create a private toll road on private property with private funds. That's just asinine. It is nearly impossible to build one without using public services, such as the public roads and ports needed to deliver materials, but certainly not illegal.

It's leaching off me if you don't pay your fair share, and you have made it clear you don't think you should have to pay any, so I must assume you do all you can to minimize what you put into the pot...so yes, I would make an educated guess that you are leaching off me. I don't even itemize deductions, because I feel grateful to live in what I feel is a great country, and feel it's unpatriotic to try to shirk my duty to pay for my portion of government, even if I disagree with how they spend most of it. That's the cost of living in a 'representative democracy'.

As to mail, yes, you may not use mail boxes set up for/by the USPS for a private mail service...so you can't do 'first class mail'. You can, however, deliver letters for a fee to your OWN style of 'letter box', so your claim they have a 'monopoly' is ridiculous, they would be so happy to have it taken over, it's a big money loser and a huge pain in the ass to keep going. I'm personally grateful mail hasn't yet been privatized, as I know full well the service would suffer badly to make it profitable, for me especially since I live in the boonies and would never be profitable as a customer. To deliver my letters by FedEx would cost 10 times what USPS charges. (by the way, FedEx and UPS are proof that you already CAN deliver 'mail' privately, just not into a USPS 'mail box')
EDIT: What you said was akin to me saying 'Instead of just complaining about the quality of available burgers, you could open your own hamburger stand' and you answering 'I can't...it's illegal for me to sell "Big Mac's" because...government'.

AND, I would add, you have still never addressed my original point, that if business could/would 'self regulate', they would be doing so now. Self regulation is total fantasy, it simply doesn't happen. How exactly, I wonder, are 'the people' supposed to gain the knowledge about a companie's violations of public trust and health if there's no regulatory agency inspecting and reporting on what the company is actually doing, and they can do all their evil in secret?

Also, mail is a government monopoly. One of many, like roads. It's illegal to offer privately delivered first class mail in the States. Man, statists just keep setting them up and I keep knocking them down. Tell me more about these wonderful perks in statist land.

I only meant to point out that 'people of color' have no monopoly on being treated badly, historically, nearly all 'races' have been oppressed at some time. That does not minimize the oppression people of color suffer under today, only notes that they are not alone, and others have suffered as they do.
Also, if someone says 'your group is racist' and I'm not racist, I should point out 'I don't belong to that group, which is racist'. That seems to solve your issue of the issue being ignored, but does not require a non-racist to allow themselves to be oppressed under the blanket color of racism. You don't need a 'pat on the back', but at the same time you shouldn't just accept being labeled 'racist' for no reason other than the speakers racism, if it's not true.

Um....did you forget what color the slaves that built the pyramids were? Have you heard of indentured servitude? Ever heard of an empire called Rome? Whites HAVE a history of being slaves.
Have you forgotten how the Irish, or German, or Chinese, or Japanese, etc. were treated? White, and other non-blacks have been treated as dirty on mass for the color of their skin, or the lilt of their voice, or the shape of their eyes, really for just about every ridiculous reason man could think of. Blacks have no monopoly on a history of mistreatment of their 'group'. They do seem to be the main target today however.
Do you think ghettos are 100% black? Let me dissuade you of that fallacy...they are not. Many 'white' people have LIVED many if not all of the experiences of people of color, for example, mixed race people (particularly those in the south), adopted white babies in black families, and whites that simply identify more closely with a 'black' community. Not ALL white people are ignorant of the reality and implications of racism. Some are.
Because 'white people' may not have ALL the answers does not mean they should not have a voice at the table discussing racial issues....but they should certainly not be the only voice either....they probably should not be the loudest voice too.

So I wasn't just imagining things when I mentally replaced the 'L' in Thiel's name with an 'F'. The article really covers this subject better than the video and is worth the read even if I don't agree with all of his conclusions. For instance he asserts that competition hampers innovation because competitors are too busy fighting it out to take the time to do so, when innovation will be what differentiates you from the competition in the first place. He reasons that monopolies have the time and money to plot out the future, but without competition why bother when you can just continue to profit from the status quo. He seems to assume that monopolies will act as beneficent rulers and not greedy tyrants, even though recent events involving ISP monopolies would suggest the latter.

it's hilarious that this guy doesn't know what "monopoly" actually means.

It's absolutely based in reality. I can say that with 100% certainty, because that's how the NZ police do it every day. They don't even carry guns*.

I know all of this, because a friend of mine recently became a cop and he's had to deal with situations like this.

The US is blinded by their obsession with guns. They're useful tools but they should be the last resort.

And while I don't believe that officers should be trained to get themselves killed, there is a level of risk that is inherent to the role of policing and they must be prepared to accept that.

I am not one of the rabid anti-police libertarians on the sift. If you look at my comment history you'll see that I support police more often than not. They have an incredibly hard job, but it should be a hard job. When you give some one the states monopoly on force, I expect them to be held to a high standard. In a civilised nation, "shoot first" is not an acceptable policing practice.


*they have guns available in the car and there is a special Armed Offenders Squad, but front-line uniformed police don't as a rule carry side-arms.