User blog comment:GrandMethuselah67/Character Sheet: Malcolm River/@comment-4867780-20161014010956/@comment-26322734-20161016045721

"On a more practical level, don't the superior profits of bigger compagnies allow them to offer better products at a lower cost (thanks to research funds and economy of scales), and thus outclass/suffocate smaller ones into bankruptcy/absorption ?"

Sure, maybe. But if big businesses are offering high quality goods and services at low prices, low enough for the average consumer to afford, what's the problem?

I suppose ethical egoism makes the assumption that an individual, in the persuit of their own self-interest, will always make the best choice for themselves if provided alternatives. People wouldn't eat from McDonalds (another highly corrupt industry that recieves government privileges, by the way) if there were other, smaller restaurants that sold equally tasty food at the same cheap prices. Which there are most of the time, except in inner city areas where McDonalds overshadows them all.

It goes back to government privileges. McDonalds lobbies for laws that make it difficult for smaller franchises to open (as someone who has a friend that works in a smaller restaurant, trust me, there are a lot of obstacles), which leads to, of course, less smaller restaurant businesses being open. In a free market, this would be no problem. A smaller, less powerful government = nothing for the corporations to lobby to = better competition.

An example of this is how many people are preferring vaping and e-cigarettes to regular cigarettes. The amount of people switching to e-cigarettes is actually improving world health. People are choosing to vape because they know that smoking is bad for them. Sure, a large majority of people still smoke, but this is a trend. How many people will vape in say, ten, twenty years? All because of freedom of choice, all because the government doesn't help out tobacco companies or e-cig companies, for that matter.