There is a strong case for this view, and it is shared by many well-regarded economists throughout history.
And I haven't redefined the terms: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Monopoly
Citation needed
> And I haven't redefined the terms: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Monopoly
Even ignoring the question using a heavily-biased resource, that page would not need to mention “government-sanctioned monopolies” if there were in fact no other kind.
http://principlesnotmen.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/does-the-fr...
Rothbard, Sowell, Mises and others share this view. Google their names followed by the word "monopoly" for an abundance of material.
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Monopoly
"A monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group." in bold in the middle of the page.
If I can't quote a university that advocates for the Austrian view without you labeling it bias, there's no point to this discussion.
You accused me of redefining monopoly. I point to an entire school of economics that defines monopoly as I defined it. You dismiss it as bias.
There's obviously a pretty fundamental problem with any discussion of economics which limits itself to the former kind of monopoly and fails to at least discuss the latter kind (even if it uses a different name for it for some reason). And there's equally obviously a problem with any discussion of monopoly in economics which ignores that the use of the term in economics usually means the latter, not the former (while in law, "monopoly" without other qualifications in certain contexts does mean the former, though in other contexts -- e.g., anti-trust, it means the latter.)
[1] Both definitions illustrated here: http://thelawdictionary.org/monopoly/