The key is to discontinue the equivocation of the term monopoly–that is to use the term “monopoly” to refer to two mutually exclusive concepts: a company formed by economic power vs. a company formed by political power. There are two different concepts denoted by the term monopoly: (1) a company that has earned 100% share of a given market (i.e., Microsoft) or (2) a company that has not earned its 100% market-share, but instead had the government outlaw its competition (i.e., US Post Office). The first should morally be praised–and the second should morally be condemned. By equivocating on the term monopoly and keeping it ambiguous it becomes an anti-concept so that: a company that has earned 100% share of a given market (actually Microsoft does not have 100% of the O/S/ market but has over 90%) is morally condemned. Such are the dangers of confusing economic power (Microsoft’s power of production) with political power (the Post Office’s power derived from coercion).