[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
SANE NON-ANARCHIST COUNTEREXAMPLE:

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a counterexample. It's a hypothetical. If what you propose were actual inevitable reality, you would have no trouble finding an actual counterexample instead of having to make one up.

To address your points specifically, when PVN corp goes under, there are assets - both knowlege and tangible assets - that can be snapped up by other competitors which make their startup costs much less than PVN corp's costs were.

Furthermore, your characterization of "Imtel" as a monopoly is false. In your hypothetical, Imtel has no government-granted protection from competition, nor do they have complete control of the supply of the commodity (as evidenced by PVN corp's attempt to compete).

Your explanation of Imtel's behavior doesn't particularly impress me. So they drive out all competition, then raise prices. Apparently, while there is no competition, people are still buying Imtel's product. Where is the problem? The consumers are voluntarily buying, they must not find the prices too high, else they would not purchase Imtel's product. They are voting with their wallets, and their votes say that they feel that they are benefiting from the transactions.

Obviously, consumers would prefer that prices be lower - but they prefer lower prices even when there is *active* competition.

An individual will always try to find a job that pays more money for less work. Does that make him evil? What's different for Imtel?