>>28,29
Anti-trust laws exist solely BECAUSE the logical conclusion the free market system is one corporation controlling everything
No, that would mean one corporation would have a monopoly.
Monopolies don't form in a free market. As they get bigger, the cost of buying out the market increases. If companyA's competitors see companyA trying to become a monopoly, they know they can charge much higher prices when companyA tries to buy them out. If companyA owns 95% of the market, and you are one of the last few competitors, you know you can charge incredibly high prices for companyA to buy you, as there aren't many other companies you are competing with in stock price. Not only this, but companyA is continually faced with new competition springing up. The more monopolistic a company becomes, the less competition they face, and the more inefficient they are able to become. This means it is in fact easier to compete with them, so people begin investing in firms that are in competition. Also, as a company buys out the market, it is accumulating debt on account of the incredibly high cost of buying out the market. This means it has to increase its prices in order to make up for this debt, making them easier to compete with for new competitors.
This is something one can learn just by playing a child's game called Monopoly
Monopoly doesn't factor in new competition. Imagine playing a game of monopoly where new players can join whenever they want.
Monopoly is also largely a game of chance,
hurr durr. Yes, there are small degrees of chance in business management, but for the most part it depends on the skill of the businessmen. There is nowhere near the degree of chance in the real world as there is in Monopoly.
Furthermore, if you've played Monopoly you will know how hard it is to buy the last colour of an area if you own the rest. This demonstrates the point I made earlier about buying out the market beautifully. Thankyou for making my own point for me.
The very EXISTENCE of corporations disproves that notion
No it doesn't. Nor does any example you can come up with in reality, as there are no anarcho-capitalistic societies in existence. Why? Obviously because states don't give up their power easily. They want to keep that power.
some idiot might actually believe you know what you're talking about
Implying that you know what you're talking about.
Kindly stop being economically illiterate and stop making rehashed and recycled statist arguments.