rich1.0freemymind 🇨🇭 (npub1kl…0u2uq)https://yabu.me/npub1kl8e7s48j6cfr6zrmn53n5l0fsxustszj3fwmu9ahn0tnm9e8euq80u2uqnjumphttps://yabu.meI mostly agree. States can offer many monopoly services. Still states have big differences, on how power is shared or concentrated. As more centralized a state is built, the more prone to corruption. And therefore 90% marketplayers can corrupt things. I would say, that transparency is key. A marketplayer with 90% marketshares, which acts transparently could be legitimate. But a 90% will always be proof of a heavily disbalanced and non-free market. A 90% player can always dry out, buy or threaten whatever competitor. For consumers to have good journalism on how such a company operates is crutial. Just as journalism is needed to control state power, they are also needed to help control every other monopoly. To the example with Teleport innovation. Clearly. When you find out a new technique on how to do something, you have a maketadvantage in knowledge. And therefore you can probably sell a profitable product. But eventually other people will figure out, how your machine works and try to produce and sell the same product. This evultion of markets is crutial for freedom.