I always find it interesting that almost everyone understands the danger of monopoly. If you talk to a "Progressive", they understand thoroughly that, if allowed, monopoly results in the lowest quality at the highest price point, and that monopoly allows individuals to essentially hijack society for their own benefit.
What I have found they do not understand at all, and what amounts to a logic hole or logic flaw in their world view, is that monopoly is bad because human nature cannot handle it responsibly, that monopoly is bad because it allows the worst aspects of human nature to flourish unchecked. I say that they don't understand this because they persist in believing that monopoly is solely a business phenomenon. They insist on keeping their world view zoomed in rather than being willing to zoom out and see the big picture, which is that human nature is unchangeable, that human nature is the technology around which the system must be built, and, most importantly, that human nature does not change between the public and private sector. Both are full of humans who function exactly the same in either sphere. They refuse to see this, and instead want to hide in the soft, fuzzy, childish idea that people in business are bad and people in regulatory agencies and government are good.
Once you understand that monopoly is the problem, and that it is a problem because of the reality of human nature, then it becomes obvious that attempting to fix a monopoly problem by instituting a different monopoly isn't a solution at all. It is at best a can kicking exercise, which will only be beneficial until the second monopoly becomes parasitic.
I have never understood why people believe that something can be so "important" that it must be protected by monopoly -- because that tells me that, deep down, they really have no fundamental understanding of how monopoly works and why it is bad. They are at best surface thinkers, because if they understood how competition works, how competition produces the highest quality at the lowest price point, then they would understand that the best way to "protect" something is to force it to confront competition. And thus that the best way to protect the quality of money is to reduce barrier to entry and force it to compete.
Unfortunately, Progressives tend to be a toxic combination of shallow thinkers and arrogant do gooders, and who therefore don't listen to any reason while they force society at sword point to tilt at the windmills they are convinced are attacking society.
RE: "Consumer Protection:" Who Does That REALLY Protect? Stupidity 101...