> Bill Bartlett wrote:
> You say there are two kinds of monopoly, one variety of which you say
> has never existed. So that means that there is only *one* kind of
> monopoly.
>
Mumps:
> Nope.
> In baseball a pitcher who throws precisely 24 pitches (home) or 27 pitches
> (visitor) has pitched a 'perfect game' ... that one has NEVER happened
> does not preclude its existence.

Whoa! This is a really bad analogy - the necessary preconditions for this
feat have always existed in that they are codified in the rules of
baseball - there can be no doubt that, unless the rules are changed to the
contrary, that this feat is theoretically possible. Whether its achievement
is likely or not... well, you'd get some wild odds. Anyway, the necessary
preconditions have never existed for your natural monopoly, and this is what
removes it from the possible (as the baseball thing is located in the REAL
world of the possible) and dumps it in the fantastical - very much
precluding its existence. Now, if you changed an awful lot of things around,
you may create a situation where something like your NM might develop... but
there are a lot of steps between then and now, and probably far too many to
draw your highly theoretical conclusions from. Maybe the baseball equivalent
of your 'natural monopoly' is, say, 10 outs in one innings (at least it's in
the same category).

Mumps:
> All rights are force or the threat of force, but you are attempting to
> subject free exchange into this equation which is dishonest.

Does free exchange not presuppose some conception of rights - what are we to
call the thing that allows us to claim the thing that we'll exchange for
another thing (also justified)? And what about the elements that are needed
to protect against those who would seek to transgress against the grail of
'free (capitalist) exchange'? Shouldn't we be honest about these things too?

Mumps:
> This too is false.
> You presume a person at the bottom remains there (and vice versa) which
> is simply inaccurate.

A generalisation, to be sure, but far more the rule than the exception,
surely?

> You further blame the apple for these woes when it
> is clearly the banana which is at the core ... most likely because of your
> support for the latter or at least the Power it brings.

I got the feeling we're dealing with the fruit-cake ;-)

> Bill Bartlett wrote:
> A very few clever people manage to claw their way out of the working class
> from time to time of course. But if you think that proves that everyone
> can, you are denying the laws of physics and mathematics. If everyone
> could join the ruling class, then there would be no-one for them to rule
and
> no-one to do any work. So obviously not everyone can.  The closest would
be
> a class-less society, where no-one rules over anyone else.

Mumps:
> You are confusing concepts and things.

Can explain this, please - I'm without understanding your point.

> Bill Bartlett wrote:
> But wealth being finite, it is not possible for everyone to to amass the
> same wealth and power as Bill Gates. And no need.

Mumps:
> And part of your central premise is thus exposed AND false.
> Wealth is NOT distributed but created.

Well, obviously 'creation', or some such device precedes distribution, but
having decided that wealth exists, the question is then what is to be done
with it - how is it to be mobilised, through what mechanisms and to what
ends - and on what basis is whatever is decided to be legitimised, and how
is this 'legitimacy' to be maintained (etc)?

> Bill Bartlett wrote:
> I shall have to assume that you hail from some parallel universe where
this
> is actually in doubt. In our dimension though, the fact of Microsoft's
> monopoly has been established by the courts, along with the fact that they
> have abused this monopoly.

Mump:
> Whimsical opinions of Political efforts have no basis in reality.

Wonder if the Gates man is so dismissive of his situation, it being without
reality, n'all.

> Microsoft is not a monopoly.

No it isn't, not if your particular and uncommon definition of monopoly,
i.e. 'one seller' is to be accepted. Actually, there's room for a deal
here... you guys can have your 'monopoly' definition, but the price is that
you've got to stop pretending that theory is the same as reality. Fair nuf?

Regards

b