> Napster was a godsend. The music industry was a racket. Completely true - and the reason why, is because it forced competition on the music industry. Competi

> Napster was a godsend. The music industry was a racket. Completely true - and the reason why, is because it forced competition on the music industry. Competition that couldn't be bought out. Napster wasn't completely free - it came with the costs legality and a bit of tech know how, but it brought competition to the industry. And overall it again exposed one of the key points. Free markets dont benefit consumers, competitive markets do. Consumers and society benefits when people are free and capable to successfully enter and exit markets as consumers as they see fit, and when entrepreneurs are free and capable of successfully entering markets as suppliers as they see fit. Locked distribution channels, exclusivity deals and the rest all prevent this. Without competitive markets, you end up with gross-rent seeking. Competitive markets benefit consumers and society overall, Pure free markets incentivize seeking. Heavy handed government intervention can eliminate competition in suppliers, however other suppliers are frequently the number one force in current markets eliminating competition in suppliers. And the end result for consumers (as we saw in the record industry) is just as bad. If we're arguing against regulatory capture, and government limiting market efficiency, then we need to be arguing just as strongly against exclusivity deals, locked distribution channels and moats. If a tower is teetering one way, giving it a shove so it's now teetering just as far another way is no better when we want it to stand balanced. Trading govt enabled rent-seeking for industry enabled rent seeking is in no way a win for consumers or society. And arguing the benefits of free markets while ignoring the fact they aren't competitive due to industry moat building tactic is hypocritical.