I'm talking about the menu a restaurant puts together based on the deals and choice they get from suppliers. One supplier may undercut the other. The restaurant may sign a long term deal with a supplier that isn't beneficial to the patrons. Competition is a check on that scenario, just as it is with any market where there is at least a handful of non-colluding sellers.

It's not rational to charge suppliers for priority? It's totally rational. They want more of your pipe. Ignoring the popular notions of fairness and "packet equality", why shouldn't they get charged more?

Competes fairly? How about just legally? A rule violation is a rule violation and should be settled in the justice system. The beauty of competition is that companies would rather undercut/offer a superior product over the competitors rather than waste time in court (or jail). You just need several competitors to keep them honest. It's a sufficient quantity of options, not the heavy-hand of the state, that ensures consumers are protected.

If anti-discrimination laws were repealed, do you honestly believe minorities and women would have their dining and golfing options cut by 50%? I bet it wouldn't even be 5%. And I bet white males would have their options cut by the same number. Popular opinion and competition help solve that particular market problem. Law definitely helps, but the assumption that competition only works when "everyone competes fairly with the same moral and ethical values" is flat out false. On the whole, the profit motive is much stronger than any superficial biases. Finding talented workers who share the exact same superficial biases, and not having someone like Jesse Jackson leading picket lines outside your business would both be damn near impossible.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Food_Service