I wish there were more libertarians like you just described.

I ask this honestly and not trolling for a fight, is there a name for that subset of libertarians that you just described?

I agree with everything you just said, except this line. I think there is a pre existing Hatfield Vs McCoys thing going on between Democrats and Republicans. At the current rate of obstructionism that the republicans are promising, an independent might get more help than a Democrat would from the Republicans. For example, imagine if Lieberman was president (I'm wincing while typing that). He would be getting help from Republicans and Democrats and as much as I really dislike the guy, his independent status might actually get a lot passed*.

* probably nothing i would like, but a lot.

To your first paragraph: I agree that oligopolies are healthier than monopolies for innovation. But I wouldn't say they are the healthiest market place. The reduction of competition in anyway seems detrimental to the variety and innovation competition brings. While there should be a useful price drop as economies of scale come into play, I fail to see how in a market place filled with only larger companies, their leverage tend toward helping consumers.

To your second paragraph: I agree there is a limit to a size a company should grow if their consideration is just what makes the best product/service for the consumer, I disagree that that is the common stopping point. Your assertion makes it seem like because they have been disadvantageous to consumers they would instantly wither and die, but in fact as their power grows they begin to acquire a range of additional abilities to re-balance the market place in their favor, consumers be damned.

Your third paragraph brings up an interesting point of discussion. If I understand you correctly, I agree that all markets of sufficient size tend towards oligopolies. It is rare that an actual monopoly with occur though (and we might disagree here) I contend it is because that is when government regulators finally step in.

Finally, wouldn't the inclusion of venture capital as the only way to compete in that market place be proof that at some point and oligopoly is more hostel to garage start ups? The only people who can compete in it already have more than a garage worth of money.

Well, "tend towards" and "are" are two different things. The fact that vast majority of markets are not currently monopolies does not negate the concept that they tend towards it. But honestly, I think all of your ire comes from the usage of the word monopoly instead of oligopoly. I believe the thrust of this article and the comments you are railing against is the idea that in older markets, there will most definitely be larger companies. I believe what most people in this thread are saying is that it becomes harder for smaller start ups to coexist in a market place with giant companies since giant companies have large amounts of leverage to throw around. The only companies who can compete with that type of leverage are companies who also have massive leverage. Speaking as an economist then, would you still say that free markets don't tend to oligopolies? Whether you shared the concept that free markets tend towards oligopolies, would you say older free markets are ever or often good for garage start ups?