@RickHull Please don't confuse a state with its government. Ignoring the military, only 1 of the 3 separated powers is allowed to use violence.

That aside.

There's a huge difference between a company and a government. Because I only get to decide on the politics of the latter. But luckily my government has jurisdiction over companies operating in the country in question, giving me also some power over them.

So. To make this clear: A government having control over people without the people having control over it: A potential problem. A company having a monopoly and therefore control over people without the people having control over it: A potential problem.

Luckily the people get to control the first, which in turn has control over the latter.

But people always have control over a company, even if that company has a monopoly. They can simply not buy the company's product or service, or use an alternate product or service. It may not be as good as the one offered by the monopoly, but no company is forcing people to pay them for their goods and services. In fact, the only entity that is forcing people to pay them for the goods and services they provide is the government.

The very definition of monopoly is that there is no alternative. I can't just go to another company because they, for instance, do not have the people I'd like to connect with in their network.

You can choose not to social network if Facebook is the only social network. That is clearly an "alternative".

So monopolies don't exist and are a lie made up by economists because I can always choose not to consume at all?

Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous.

The state has monopoly on the use of violence, among other things. Just because leadership may change does not alter this fact. Would you deny the fact of a corporate monopoly simply because their leadership may change?