> It appears as if <Dick.Gray@bull.com> wrote:
> |Joe writes:
> |>No gov't = no anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws.
> |Yes indeed. And good riddance.
> What would you suggest to stop a Company from becoming a monopoly and
> a defacto State?
> (I see no inherent difference between a State and a monopolistic Company.)
You are correct here. There is no real difference except in degree. A corporate monopoly only controls one product or market, or at most a couple markets. A government controls them all in an exclusive territory. A government is also an absolute monopoly, while a corporate monopoly may have competitors in the market that have relatively minor market shares. This is a very important distinction, as even in a monopolized market, there is still the possiblity of using a competitors products, but at some cost to the consumer. Under a government there is no choice under any circumstances, unless you count emigration to another government's territory and any attendant fees or asset losses as a result as a cost. In which case, the cost of using any competitor to a particular government is rather high, if it is present at all (note governments that do not allow emigration, and governments that make immigration rather difficult).
In order to prevent any company from becoming a monopoly for a long enough period to gain significant control over people lives, enough to become a government, there needs to be a relatively low cost of innovation (which will result in a high rate of technological change). There also needs to be a lack of existing government that will protect such companies.