Or more likely just result in the inefficient one (almost always an indicator of having more resources) buying the efficient one or simply undercutting them out of business, in order to maintain their status. It is cheaper to just get rid of the competition than to actually improve your own practices.
And how, pray tell, is a government solution (which is not only monopolistic, but uses violence rather than shady business tactics to maintain its monopoly) any better?
How is me depriving you of your ability to live (you know, get food, etc) via economic harm any different in violence than a government depriving you of your ability to live (via guns)? Is it because slow painful deaths by starvation, caused by a guy with a grudge are what you want for the world? Is it because that threat isn't really different other than the totemic difference of the removal of the word govermment (aka your magic symbol for evil)?
You need to define "depriving you of your ability to live." If you mean stealing someone's food or annexing their farm land, then I'm absolutely against that. If you mean choosing to not give someone some of your food, or causing someone's business to fail because your competing business is more successful, or choosing to not employ the, because they are unqualified or underperforming, then I find no blame. I do not believe that I have a moral, legal, or societal obligation to provide for anyone or everyone, but more importantly, I do not believe that a society where people are forced to do so under threat of violence (i.e. every government in history) will have less poverty.
