[waterhouse]

And, out of curiosity, what would you say if someone made an argument that company X, while not owned by the government, is effectively a monopoly due in significant part to government intervention? Mechanisms for this might be: patent grants, regulations that create significant barriers to entry for new competitors, lucrative contracts with a federal department, inconsistent enforcement of existing laws while the incumbent has protective connections with the enforcers, tariffs...

[root_axis]

Your hypothetical is too vague for me to answer. If you have a specific example I'd be happy to elucidate further.

I'll add that I don't regard patents, regulation, or "inconsistent enforcement of existing laws" as a reason why a company or individual should forfeit the freedom to determine what they host on a computer they own.