The main reason why college is so expensive in the US is government involvement in the system. ANY TIME the government gets entrenched in an industry prices go up and quality declines. For instance, the government is the main provider of school loans. That makes much more credit available than would exist in a free market. This creates an incentive for schools to raise tuition because they know students can just run to the government and easily get a loan to fund the ludicrous tuition. In a free market, that type of credit would not be available. Thus, universities would be forces to keep their prices lower if they want to have customers.

The government holds a monopoly on the legal use of force. They make the laws and if you don't follow them you will be arrested - by force. NO company can FORCE you to use or buy their products. If no other company can or wants offer a product or service that is competative with that of Google's, it is NOT a proper role of government to forcefully debilitate Google. A company's job is to make as much profit as possible, and by extension gain as much amrket share as possible. Just like a sports team should not be forced to lose some games if they are undefeated, Google should not be forced to give up market share if other companies cannot compete.

I could not agree more. The same exact thing can be said about the evil anti-trust laws.

This "concept" of rights is a fallacy. Rights are what morally SHOULD be, based on observable facts in reality. Rights are not what any particular government has determined are so. Those would be referred to as laws, and laws are often in conflict with what properly should be rights. Essentially, there is only one basic right (as can be proven through observation of reality and philosophic discovery) and that is the right to life. All other proper rights are a derivative and extention of one's basic right to life. A government does not "grant rights". They only protect or violate them.

That's the problem. Internet access is NOT a right. Imagine if the ISP's closed their doors tomorrow just because they chose to. If we have a RIGHT to the internet access they provide, then by definition, we would need to force them to stay open to satisfy our "right". The fact that the FCC "owns" the spectrum is another issue, but equally wrong. The spectrum should be owned by the engineers and scientists who discovered its existance, are capable of making use of it, and able to market it to customers for whatever use they choose (including keeping it to themselves). We do not have a "public right" to a spectrum that we do not have the scientific knowledge to use or comprehend. At some point someone discovered the spectrum. And at some point individuals made the scientific discoveries of which utilize the spectrum. The idea that those individuals' work should be expropriated and given to the public as a "right" is a violation of those scientists' rights. Imagine if the scientist(s) who discovered the spectrum had instead decided to play baseball, or be a realtor, or waste their lives with drugs. The very thing that you and others think is a "public right" would not even have been discovered in the first place.

I have a huge problem with the "already greedy airlines trying to get more money" little stab in the post. What is the purpose of a business? To lose money? To give money away? To be altruistic? Why is it so negative for a company to actually strive to make money? Its irritating to hear this referred to in a negative connotation. If you've ever flown anywhere, you better thank God that the owners of airlines are greedy, or those flights probably would not even exist. The owners would instead be paddling boats around the world searching for people to pass their time and money off to in the name of "not being greedy". As long as businesses are going to be looked at as evil for their "greed" we're going to have huge problems in this country.