[quote]Because he used specific definitions & a narrow viewpoint to make a claim that isn't true. You & I both know that a monopoly can exist without the government giving it to someone, & that a free market can exist with a government. At least you should know that, if you passed 7th grade American history.[/quote] How can monopolies exist without the state? And how can a network of voluntary exchanges exist under a monopoly of force?

And now we’ve come to the point where you won’t dispute it because you know I’m right.

Because the ‘argument’ is pseudo intellectual Here’s something he never responded to [spoiler] [quote]You’re argument consists of defining a free market can only exist in a world without government, then defining a monopoly as only existing with government intervention. Then you go on to conclude monopolies can’t exist without government. I mean it’s literally just reading the definitions. You just fancied it up and made it drag on. Even so this conclusion is meaningless because a Monopoly is an economic term that has a set modern definition that differs from the one you chose. The whole premise is flawed. I assert that economics is theoretical because that’s where these terms perfect competition and monopoly exist. I’m sure you’re aware of the basic economic assumptions that clearly distinguishes it from the real world. No text book monopoly or competitive market can exist in any world. Government or not. So if that’s your point, again it’s blatantly obvious and you made it in a very round about way. A natural monopoly doesn’t require anyone to actively prevent others from entering the market, it happens naturally hence the name. Let’s go back to my ISP example. In a world without any government, so no taxes or regulations or anything of all ISPs merged into a single firm, they would be a natural monopoly. No competitor could realistically compete because they couldn’t profitably create a far reaching infrastructure at a competitive price. Even if they could the existing ISP could easily use predatory pricing and run them into the ground. Basic game theory tells us this game will never actually be played because all players know how it will play out. In your OP your water example is wrong. Primarily, a monopoly price is not equivalent to price gouging. A monopoly price maximizes profits according to the demand. A monopoly price would never result in reduced profits. From your example it seems you don’t know what a monopoly price is. Natural monopolies can exist in other ways as well such as limited resources, intellectual property (not patents), or like the ISP example. [quote]"...the logical dichotomy between “monopoly price” and “competitive price” is a false one. This comparison is nothing more than an illusion. [/quote] It’s not, they are theoretical definitions that literally mean basically the opposite things. In reality they are never truely achieved (because they’re theoretical terms) but they are good reference points to evaluate a market.[/quote] [/spoiler]

Glad to help. The state has zero place in spontaneous market behaviors.