It's a loose comparison, but a monopoly is like monarchy, competition is like democracy. If a country has a king that is truly capable, caring and trusted, he

It's a loose comparison, but a monopoly is like monarchy, competition is like democracy. If a country has a king that is truly capable, caring and trusted, he can get a lot of things done that no other system can compete with. If he is Robert Mugabe, tough luck. If the country has a democracy, there is limit to the amount of damage any one leader can do. And there is a hope that over time, the system will promote the "better" leader. Similarly, when there is on a monopoly, and the leaders really care about developing the space, lots of good can come of it. Such as AT&T for a time, and IMO Google back in Sergey Brin's days as CEO. But when they have gone south, it brings down the whole sector. Whereas with competition, there is a limit to the stagnation and anti-consumer behavior, and a hope that the favored companies will generally prevail. Over the long run, I am pretty sure that democracies / competition is the better bet for progress. <OT> Abrahamic religions pine for a king who will be perfect (a "Messiah"), since that has the benefits without the risk. Meanwhile, the religions compete with each other, which is a arguably better than if one had complete control.</OT>