[Agamemnon]

Not surprising, because it just riles me up when you repeat over and over that “FOL wants a lawless society where the guy with biggest gun takes everything.” No matter how many times I say that I do NOT advocate a lawless society, you will come back with same childish claims. How would YOU react if I kept repeating in every topic that Agamemnon wants to club seal pups?

You see, you keep attacking the 'real' world with your pie-in-the-sky philosophical utopianism solutions. Does the world suck, sure. Do governments steal (tax) money, sure. Is hoping for a reversion to 'Natural Law' an effective stance to take in dealing with these problems? Hell no. It's a leisurely debate in wonderland that is fine and fantastic if we're each talking about our 'dream' states, but what's the point? How would 'Natural Law' ever take the nation-state's position? Armageddon?

I keep saying you advocate a 'lawless society' because you don't address how 'laws' are to be enforced. You suggest that everyone will basically do unto others as they would have done to themselves. That's the golden rule _now_ for a couple billion Christians, and it doesn't seem to work much. You're advocating the lapse of public law and order in favour of... what? You never really say. Which is why I'll keep coming back to these 'realist' points, because you've completely ignored them.

As far as I'm concerned, you're like Plato trying to push the Republic. Fun to think about, but lacking any connection to the 'real world'. This stuff needs to be posted in a philosophy point of view, not political science. It has no place in 'politics', just in debates over beer.

As for the article, yes, it is an opinion piece. Author wrote several books on the topic, in case you become interested in the stuff he writes about in his article, you may check out his books/works (these are referenced). That’s why the article is not referenced (how often are daily opinion columns referenced?) but it does not mean it’s unfounded.

Any time numbers are taken and used as facts, they should probably be backed up. Since I see no source for his statistical claim, and have found other sources that site very different statistics, I'm forced to rule this guy out of order unless he actually divulges where he got the 11% figure from (which, again, is wrong).

Lastly, if Microsoft had 100 percent market share, would that mean it’s a monopoly? No, it would mean that at this moment, it is the only seller on the OS market. However, because there are no legal entry barriers to the industry, Microsoft does not have a monopoly; it is simple one player on the market. That does not equal to monopoly.

This is just hilarious as far as I'm concerned. You've more or less decided to change the definition of monopoly to suit your argument. You're implying that the state _must_ be involved in an enterprise for it to be a monopoly, and if its not, then no one 'monopolizes' the marketplace by definition. Your definition, I'd wager, is pretty narrow and fitted to your argument.

A business that is the sole supplier of a particular good or service. Regulated monopolies, such as electric utilities, are generally restricted as to the returns they are permitted to earn. Other monopolies such as firms with unique products or services derived from patents, copyrights, or geographic location may be able to earn very high returns. Wall Street Words.

Apparently monopolies can exist by virtue of 'patents, copyrights, or geographic location' in addition to government support.