If you asked most liberals what they thought of monopolies, they would say that they are opposed to them. Many would be quick to assume that oil companies are gouging their customers, and this could not be accomplished without collusion (or monopolistic behavior) among the leading oil companies. Liberals are very much against monopolies, right? I am not so sure.
The recent decision by our left leaning Racine city council suggests otherwise. They sold three cars AND a four year taxi service monopoly just the other day for only $1,500. I support the privatization of the taxi service, but the monopoly guarantee is a bad idea. In a city with high unemployment, they should realize that a government enforced monopoly will prevent job growth, insofar as anyone wishing to start a taxi service will be prevented from doing so. Is there some unknown danger to allowing the market to decide whether Racine can support one, two, or ten taxi companies? Why does the winning bidder deserve protection from competition? He already has a huge advantage over any potential competitor as he has three cars at $500 each plus the experience gained from running a taxi service in Milwaukee.
My conclusion is that liberals are only opposed to the monopolies that they do not control. That is why they are all for government monopolies in health care, education, and now taxi services, so long as they control them.