Einherjar86
Active Member
First: Without government/force intervention, there is no monopoly in the market. No product or service is going to appeal to everyone or be the best at everything in perpetuity, so there will always be competition forming.
I agree with the first sentence, but only insofar as the word "monopoly" is used. Gabriel Kolko provides the convincing argument that large corporations actually encourage government regulation because it prevents competition. So I agree, to an extent.
However, the abolition of government does not mean the abolition of force/coercion, and economic entities that possess a profundity of resources have the means (I would claim) to reinstitute their own brand of monopoly, under a moniker that would not be "government" but would be, in essence, very similar.
I think this is where you and I will eternally disagree; because I don't see competition forming with ease in a situation where one entity hordes the majority (or entirety) of resources.
Second: In the event that without government involvement, a particular product has so fully realized consumer need/demand/want, and so fully outstripped their competition's offerings, that they achieve an overwhelming share of the market in that product or service: So what?
My initial response would be: they can wield an overwhelming influence over the majority of individuals' private lives.