Well I would agree with your definition for the most part, however, not necessarily majority, but rather overwhelming majority is probably a better way to put it. 51% market share does not make a monopoly is why I would state overwhelming, but that's mere semantics. As to artificially setting prices, every company does this, it just depends on the consumer as to whether or not they wish to adhere to that artificially set price.

And yes, that is indeed the case. It almost never happens unless through force or coercion by government and the like.

But the thing is even if they have 100% of the market share

they are still at risk of competition

yes, if they arise naturally

and oligrachies don't work either

you only need one company not to comply or an upstart company who wants to take all their customers

no they don't, oligarchies don't arise much at all naturally. In the flooring industry it very much is an oligarchy and then we had Beaulieu come in and wreck the place. Their branch here went under recently and fell into the hands of another competitor. There's 2 major flooring manufacturers, Mohawk and Shaw. They kind of run it together and then butt heads.

but again, they can't artificially raise prices

Eh, they can, if consumers like the product and think the new price is still worth it, but usually in most cases, consumers stop purchasing goods when prices are raised too high. It's a matter of balancing supply/demand/price.

And of course competition enters to make prices lower

yes

capitalism is beautiful

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm almost an Ancap, minus the an

lol

I'm a minarchist

Which was that again?

I'm honestly thinking it's the fancy way of saying "libertarian"

I think that the goovernment should reduced to the minimum size possible

I'm anarcho-agnostic for the most part

ah, well that's what I'm closest too, Libertarian, although not a Libertarian per se. I think government more as a mediator rather than a regulator.

I think that's how I'd put it.

Well I'm not sure if we could live without a govrnment, but I'm not quite brave enough to try

I'm nnot sure if we could or couldn't

I think government is a necessity, again as a mediator. Need a sort of "Leviathan" to ensure everyone follows their contractual obligations. I'm using the term leviathan loosely to mean some sort of ruler or arbiter or body.

well I think if a government has a main purprose, it's to protect property rights and to enforce contracts

Basically the way I think it ought to be is government is contracted by the people(like the Constitution) and is afforded the rights that the people all agreed upon in the contract. It has to be explicitly stated of course, and that is the role of government, that explicit statement within the contract and only those explicit statements.

Yes, exactly lol.

We trust people's contracts because the penalty for breaking a contract is high

yep, and that is the necessity of government. To be the mediator

And to administer justice

I think that we could use private courts for more minor infactions though

or civil disagreements

that's more like settling outside of court.

well it could be a private court

complete with all the mechanisms of court

when two parties mediate it through some third party privately.

and heck those private courts could even have private "enforcers"

I don't think I like that idea. It can lead to the administration of justice to be sporadic and unequal. All should be treated equally under the eyes of the law.

Which is why private courts could not work as each private court would have its own way of administering justice

In one court, someone could be fined heavily for a minor infraction, while in another simply warned