The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion against the way in which tea was to be distributed. The Tea Act (whatever it was called) set up a new system for distribution in which the East India company designated specific people at each port to receive their tea and sell it. This replaced an auction system. In Boston, they chose Thomas Hutchinson's sons, the governor who was already reviled by the public. So it was less about East India's monopoly and more about the favors it received from the British government which allowed it to maintain monopoly status. His point really holds no water.<p>Worse, he brushes aside the completely valid point about how the East India Company's monopoly was granted by the government.<p>> And they actually understand that you have to regulate the system to get competition.<p>What about all of the monopolies that have been created by regulation? The competition that has been destroyed? That <i>must</i> be factored in before making the decision that we need more regulation to get competition. We must try to see the unseen consequences. For each example he provides of a lack-of-regulation-created monopoly (And seriously, toothpaste? There are plenty of brands besides those two.), you can find a government created monopoly.