Ok, let me tackle this one specific point first (I'll address others a bit later, as I have to leave now). > A monopoly without profit-maximizing incentives an

Ok, let me tackle this one specific point first (I'll address others a bit later, as I have to leave now). > A monopoly without profit-maximizing incentives and with universally shared ownership (relatively speaking on both counts, of course) seems preferable Now, that's in theory. In practice, where are those angels who work in the government and don't seek profit for themselves? Where do you find those people who would be immune to lobbyists and always serve the people of the country? Because if you don't have a very precise workable procedure on how to elect such individuals and also the one that wouldn't allow them to become corrupt in the process, then you can't claim an existence of such a monopoly is better than its absence. Politics attracts people who like power and would willingly lie to and coerce the people who elected them. The only way I see is to deny such people opportunity to have this power. Free market may not be perfect, but it fosters virtue to a much greater degree than politics. A politician must first get power to do some good, while a businessmen must first do some good to make money.