My point here is that all the complexity scales sublinear with the number of rocket flights per unit time.

A key assumption on my part is that there are indeed many launches of reusable vehicles occurring.

Everyone does that. But being able to coherently write what he did does indicate to me a certain amount of self-awareness which cuts down on this sort of lying. And what behavior is going to serve him better than what he wrote?

So it's more difficult. Again, I don't see that translating into actual cost in the long run. We've increased complexity quite a bit going from a horse drawn wagon to a modern car in a modern transportation system. But the marginal cost of getting from point A to point B is still mostly the cost of fuel and the cost of the occupants' time.

You can think whatever you want. Proof requires a chain of reasoning supporting your assertion. That's not present here.

Which is why we have been trying for decades to create those market conditions.

From the libertarian viewpoint, these groups are fairly easy to defeat. Take away their assets and they're no longer a self respecting corporation. These businesses have hard assets that are hard to hide or move. They cause this sort of trouble, then break or take their assets (libertarians allow for such force in response to coercion). All these "company towns" require extensive collusion with state and local (sometimes federal) governments in order to protect the assets of the business in question. Historically, that was taken away by labor law and anti-competitive regulation, but in a libertarian society, the business no longer has that powerful ally to protect it while it engages in harmful activities.

I think a greater weakness of the libertarian viewpoint is simply that people historically choose safety over freedom. One needs social infrastructure that supports the libertarian strategy, eg, choosing to take on a tyrant, oppressive business, or crime lord and doing so in an organized way. This infrastructure simply doesn't exist in most of the world.

Uh no. The Walmart effect is the mass destruction on a local scale of inefficient retail businesses when a large, efficient competitor (commonly Walmart), comes in and outcompetes the lot of them. It has nothing to do with the "power" of the efficient competitor. Nor does it create a monopoly since Walmart is not the only company doing this (nor does Walmart destroy all retail businesses, efficient ones truck along just fine).

As to destroying the job market, well my take is that the blame is misdirected. Walmart doesn't prevent those workers from being rehired by fresh businesses. Short-sighted, destructive government policies do that.

The argument is irrelevant since the actual minimum wage in our minimum wage system is $0 per hour which is the same as if we didn't have minimum wage.

As I recall, the FAA's jurisdiction doesn't go to space. But if you go from Earth to space or vice versa, then you pass through it. And I believe the Outer Space Treaty requires the country that your business is flagged under to be liable for third party damage in space caused by your flights.

I think propellant cost is a more reasonable proxy. Keep in mind that most of those "difficulties" are fixed and don't depend (or depend weakly) on launch frequency, such as R&D, launch pads, manufacture infrastructure, etc.

Engaging in a high risk activity, such as sending people into space, implicitly means that you have some higher objective than reducing risks.