It's a given in the minds of most people that monopolies are bad, and rightly so. However,what constitutes a "monopoly" is not fully understood by most. The most successful, or "true" monopoly is not even realized because it is all-encompassing in the environment occupied by those things monopolized. It is an inescapable given. Microsoft was not a true monopoly. It had competition, even free alternatives , that it could not just go forcefully eradicate. We have other burgeoning corporate "monstrosities", such as Amazon or Walmart, which have reached their magnitude by specifically channeling all their focus into bringing what people want to them for the price they want it in the way they want it, comparatively and respectively (I won't get into regulatory capture involved in this pursuit, as it uses the existing apparatus, which I reject fundamentally as you will see). But they do have competition which people often use when there is a shortfall. Sometime we might use Target, or Ebay, or some other purveyor of similar services, as it benefits. We even have the option to abstain from purchases entirely. But we have no escape from the monopoly of the State, it's "services" and/or collections, both in the abstract and in the concrete. Even were we to escape "this" State, it is only to another, and they all are much more similar than propaganda would have us believe. The violent radical would have us believe that we must take up arms either now, or at some future point, when some arbitrary "line" is crossed, to overthrow or "take back" the state. But what does this give us but some other state? Why bother? Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. Let's apply this to the State as a monopolistic ideal.
What the hell's a "face super-register"? You said so naturally that it made me question your authenticity.
