> anarcho capitalism, in which a single entity wins because returns to capital accelerate. This single entity can then do whatever it likes.
You could have a natural monopoly form in anarcho-capitalism but unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state) then if they did abuse their monopoly position they would inevitably have competition arise even if it was required to route around whatever their monopoly was.
> unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state)
That's absolutely inevitable.
That's why I call it feudalism. What you just described is like the middle ages with various independent scattered kingdoms, or like a collapsed state where rival warlords compete for control, with the occassional uprising.
Well, that is any modern (or even pre-modern) nation-state too, vying for control over land and resources. Just because we don't have wars as much today over these things does not mean that they were not historically the norm. It's not feudalism, it's is the nature of humans to conquer and be conquered, regardless of whatever system they're in, political or economical.
You could have a natural monopoly form in anarcho-capitalism but unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state) then if they did abuse their monopoly position they would inevitably have competition arise even if it was required to route around whatever their monopoly was.