Why make a distinction between a natural monopoly and a state monopoly. Its unspecific and pointless? No offense.

I understand "state monopolies" are a problem because of the inherent violence, so it has nothing to do with a monopoly? Its the violence that is the problem? In which case why talk about monopolies then, they dont exist. The violence does, i assume. Do you know what i mean?

DawnoftheDead

You can't be serious. 

Answered elsewhere but I have no problem with natural monopolies. They are destroyed naturally when the monopoly starts to abuse their position. I have a problem with the state monopoly on violence that creates privileged positions and monopolies. The state at best is a gate keeper centrally planning the economy. 