And to that I should respond with an article called "The Myth of Natural Monopoly" http://mises.org/daily/5266
How about Google? Is there any real competition to ad words? Or google search? Does anybody use Bing without being forced? Duck Duck Go is nice, but it has worse results and will have worse results forever.
How about companies making desktop CPUs? Oligopoly isn't monopoly per se, but it's so close it doesn't matter. Nobody enforced that, it arised by itself.
Guess what - making processors in ever smaller process has huge upfront costs and small costs per unit. But that's just economic myth, right?
What I really insist on is that if a monopoly is doing a bad job and if there is no government to protect it, it will inevitably be challenged. How long did it take for Google to challenge Apple's iPhone? Not long. And they really had a huge advantage and were actually doing a pretty good job.
The only true monopoly is a government because even if you wanted to ever challenge it, you'd lose your money, freedom and possibly life. Governments have no respect for people at all because people are not their customers. They know that people have no choice but to pay.
Yep, monopoly can fall, like everything else. Still the statement "natural monopoly is a myth" is false. Besides - states can fall just like companies. They are just bigger and fall slower than companies, but they eventually all fall.
But people do have a choice, at least in the well run countries. They are more like share owners than customers - they can vote on who will be on the board. And they can migrate if they doesn't like some policy. For example in EU you can always move to another country if you don't like your own. It's why I don't support global government or too close unification of EU. I prefer to have a choice.
Proposing to change states into system of companies is a risky experiment. We know how to organize states so they are quite just. Some people doesn't want to follow that schema because they want power, but we know how to do this if we want to. On the other hand we don't know how to separate power without a state and universal laws. It all sounds nice in theory, but in practice it probably would fail spectacularly. I don't want to be part of anarchism experiment - if you want to do sth like this please do it on volunteers.
BTW google started in 1997 IIRC. It's like the old movies that came out decade age = in nineties :) Makes me feel old.
I never understood this argument. If I don't like every company, I can start my own company and disrupt the market. But if I don't like every state in existence, I cannot start my own country and migrate to it.
It is more like slavery: you can choose your master, but you can never become fully free. Just like russian Yuriy's day( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri%27s_Day ): once a year russian peasants were granted the right to move to another master. "If you don't like your master, why don't you go to another?".
> if you want to do sth like this please do it on volunteers.
This is the exact problem with governments/states: people are not allowed to live however they like. It is not like anarchy is crazy social order that even anarchists are scared to try. Anarchists are simply not allowed to start their own country/city and live there.
> BTW google started in 1997 IIRC. It's like the old movies that came out decade age = in nineties
BTW, google is not a monopoly in many countries(including USA). It doesn't even have a majority market share in every country(e.g. Russia, China)