America has "Crony Capitalism", which you may also call "Cronyism" or "Corporatism".
Most people have a price. Allowing people to have political authority (politicians, lawmakers, judges, police) over other people, even in a democracy, means those with deep pockets and/or friends in government will manipulate that authority. There is no law you can pass that will stop this, which assumes all of the current bribery (campaign contributions and lobbying) is done above board right now, anyway.
Most every monopoly that has occurred in America has been due to Corporations bribing politicians to enact regulation that favors said Corporations while making it harder for their competitors and industry newcomers. With this kind of favoritism, Corporations are less concerned about their reputation, quality of product/service, and pricing.
Picture for a moment, a society without the existence of the gun of government authority, a society based on the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). Meaning one easily enforceable rule: It is against the law to START violence. It is very important to understand this means DEFENSIVE use of force and RETALIATORY use of force are OK.
"It sounds like you are talking about Anarchy... but... I didn't know Anarchy allowed for rules or law and I've never heard of this NAP thing."
Anarchy simply means "no rulers", not "no rules".
[From here on, Author is +Alan Lovejoy]
It means that no person has any authority over others that others do not have over him--equally, symmetrically and reciprocally.
The problem with government regulation is not that it's wrong to have a third party act as a neutral arbitrator, watchdog, or guarantor of safety, quality and effectiveness. All of those things are absolutely necessary. To have a business that regulates itself is a conflict of interest.
No, the problem is that the state has a monopoly on the regulation of commerce. And that doesn't work for several reasons. One is because that also is a conflict of interest, for the same reason that having a private business regulate itself is a conflict of interest.
Who will regulate the regulators themselves? There is no transitive closure to that question.
"If an agency is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, then it is also judge in all conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision making will also cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to the state for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of the state, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding." ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Another reason is because a monopoly watchdog is a single point of failure, and a single high-value target for corruption.
The alternative is to reject as illegitimate any claim by anyone to have a monopoly on making law, enforcing law or judging law. That does not mean that such services would not be provided, only that they would be provided by a free market with multiple providers, and not by a coercive monopoly.
The naive argument against anarchism is thus revealed as a logical fallacy. The fallacy was elegantly explained in the mid 19th century:
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ~ Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
That we object to having the state make and enforce the rules, and object to it having the ultimate say regarding whether it has followed its own rules, does not mean we reject rules, or reject rule makers, or reject rule enforcers, or reject independent third-party arbitration. And in fact, we do not.
[author now back to Scott Swain from here on]
If the cognitive dissonance monster didn't rear up and discourage you from getting this far, maybe you like to challenge main stream beliefs and/or letting go is not as hard for you as it is for some. Or perhaps you are merely being thorough. Either way: