One thing that has always prevented me from being able to support full blown capitalism is monopolies. I have googled about the idea, read a bunch of different sources, many on mises.org, but none of the answers are satisfactory to me. The idea that in a free market that if a company isn't doing what consumers like they can find another company just doesn't work with monopolies and there are plenty of them around now. In many areas there is only one real broadband provider, lots of times comcast, and if you have trouble with them or don't like their high prices or them throttling bandwith for games and torrents (even legitimate ones), there is nothing to do but revert to dialup. is there really how it should be? Similarly, documents came out showing that the big phone companies all schemed together to raise the price on text messages, which is a complete ripoff, to the same price range as each other so that consumers were stuck with the high price and couldn't go anywhere else. How is the free market in this case good to the consumer? there are other cases like this with car insurance companies keeping their prices inflated and within 5% of each other since they know you need car insurance and have to buy it no matter what (unless you live in a city). basically the above is IMO the flaw of allowing monopolies to run wild, it also kills the ability for small businesses to start in these areas since big companies can sell for so much cheaper b/c of bulk sale, already having the power over that sector of the market, and being able to operate at a loss for a short time easier than a small business. Also, if monopolies are to be controlled who should step in? Only someone bigger than the monopolies (some government) and someone who actually cares about that sector of the market being fair (some government, for example ford wouldn't jump in to stop microsoft, why does it care?) has the funds and ability to regulate those companies.