Without market restrictions, smaller competitors have a stronger chance of breaking into a market and decentralizing the industry. However, dominance by a majority party tends to be the natural order of things. Case in point: the crypto market, how Bitcoin has maintained 50%+ dominance for most of the industry's history while many competitors fight to split the other half.
I think the drive for competition comes from a natural desire for choice, or at least the illusion of it. Also, geographic concerns tend to lead to some level of competition due to time factors. As humanity expands beyond the Earth's atmosphere, the distance and time required to organize a monopolizing cartel becomes more difficult. This is the same effect that led to the American Revolution, where the central authority was just too far away to be entirely efficient.
Speaking of illusion of choice; I previously worked for AT&T and was privy to the fact that they actively work with other internet service providers to negotiate non-compete regions so they can all charge exorbitant prices for sub par services. This primarily happens in suburb and exurb communities. Why I don't believe that regulation is a net positive, to say that there are not specific situations where it has it's merits is equally mistaken. Still though, if having to chose between over-regulation and ancap, i'd take ancap any day. I'm tired of being told what I can and cannot do with the product of my own labor. I am not a slave.
Std Oil was a monopoly, but they also drove the price of oil down 90% and kept it there for over a century. They literally saved the whales. It is very difficult to maintain a free market monopoly without aggressive price discounting.
But even then Std Oil started to break. Before it was over, they were getting their ass kicked by the oil services industry. They wouldn't offer oil services to smaller competitors who were taking over Texas. The share holders revolted, and got the government to break up their monopoly, separating off their oil services industry. Another example of how on their own, monopolies tend to become bloated and unresponsive to the market.
Without market restrictions, smaller competitors have a stronger chance of breaking into a market and decentralizing the industry. However, dominance by a majority party tends to be the natural order of things. Case in point: the crypto market, how Bitcoin has maintained 50%+ dominance for most of the industry's history while many competitors fight to split the other half.
I think the drive for competition comes from a natural desire for choice, or at least the illusion of it. Also, geographic concerns tend to lead to some level of competition due to time factors. As humanity expands beyond the Earth's atmosphere, the distance and time required to organize a monopolizing cartel becomes more difficult. This is the same effect that led to the American Revolution, where the central authority was just too far away to be entirely efficient.
Speaking of illusion of choice; I previously worked for AT&T and was privy to the fact that they actively work with other internet service providers to negotiate non-compete regions so they can all charge exorbitant prices for sub par services. This primarily happens in suburb and exurb communities. Why I don't believe that regulation is a net positive, to say that there are not specific situations where it has it's merits is equally mistaken. Still though, if having to chose between over-regulation and ancap, i'd take ancap any day. I'm tired of being told what I can and cannot do with the product of my own labor. I am not a slave.
Std Oil was a monopoly, but they also drove the price of oil down 90% and kept it there for over a century. They literally saved the whales. It is very difficult to maintain a free market monopoly without aggressive price discounting.
But even then Std Oil started to break. Before it was over, they were getting their ass kicked by the oil services industry. They wouldn't offer oil services to smaller competitors who were taking over Texas. The share holders revolted, and got the government to break up their monopoly, separating off their oil services industry. Another example of how on their own, monopolies tend to become bloated and unresponsive to the market.