when you have practical monopolies created when a small group of people own everything.
Now you're changing the topic, which was how consumers should be able to vote with their dollars if a retailer doesn't provide good value, and citizens are better off if they're free to move to a different jurisdiction that has a better tax-to-benefits ratio than their current jurisdiction. And a business should be free to do the same. (If a business is gouged by any entity, including its government, it's bad for the little guy, because businesses always pass those costs on to their customers.)
But a consumer can't vote with their dollars if the retailer has a monopoly. And a business can't relocate if its current jurisdiction effectively has a monopoly on where that business is permitted to operate (perhaps because someone is threatening to slap a 50% tariff on its products, and/or steal its patents, if said business relocates).
So you see, when discussing the relocation of Pfizer, it's particularly incorrect to talk of monopoly. There were 193 countries, competing with various levels of effort, to get Pfizer to operate there -- the furthest thing imaginable from a monopoly. Ireland won this round, and the U.S. lost. There is a valuable lesson to be learned there, for those willing to learn it.
made by one of the Koch Brothers
Sorry, I don't buy into the fearmongering of making the Koch brothers into bogeymen. I saw an interview of Charles Koch; quite a pleasant gentleman. But apparently lots of slashdotters do buy into that fearmongering, because you got another +5 post. That's scary.
You're comparing the decision making processes of buying a twinkie to the process of buying a heart transplant.
No, I really didn't do that. The scope of my post was strictly limited to how monopolies that gouge consumers are bad, and monopolies that gouge businesses -- to include a government that doesn't allow businesses to relocate -- are also bad.