> Ah, yes, the vaunted trick of slyly redefining a term out from under the interlocutor. While it is true that a patent is an exclusive right and thus a form of monopoly, this type of monopoly is not what I was talking about and you were well aware of that
You should probably describe the type of monopoly you are referring to, then. I have a general idea what you are talking about, but not a perfect one.
> What's more, parts of the history of the US abound with examples of precisely that behavior -- non-governmental entities subverting or disabling the operation of the free market for their own benefit. Do you dispute this?
You should definitely give a few examples, it's not exactly clear what you're talking about. For the record, I think that you're basically right: it's quite possible to create a monopoly without government intervention (De Beers, Microsoft, US Steel at one time.) However, it's difficult to maintain one (previous examples notwithstanding.)
You should probably describe the type of monopoly you are referring to, then. I have a general idea what you are talking about, but not a perfect one.
> What's more, parts of the history of the US abound with examples of precisely that behavior -- non-governmental entities subverting or disabling the operation of the free market for their own benefit. Do you dispute this?
You should definitely give a few examples, it's not exactly clear what you're talking about. For the record, I think that you're basically right: it's quite possible to create a monopoly without government intervention (De Beers, Microsoft, US Steel at one time.) However, it's difficult to maintain one (previous examples notwithstanding.)