I guess you can argue that the monopolization of a luxury good has no victims. Who feels bad for the consumers of luxury? But the monopoly itself is the harm, and especially highlighted in this example since its private monopolization of a public resource.
I think your argument would need to be that it has no sympathetic victims.
In any case, local monopolies that come from land are a common theme, not just for ski resorts. It's literally what land ownership is--or even just a 99 year leasehold, even with no freehold 'owning'.
The usual solution is property taxes (or land value taxes) to have the taxman soak up the benefits of any monopoly.
Comments
I guess you can argue that the monopolization of a luxury good has no victims. Who feels bad for the consumers of luxury? But the monopoly itself is the harm, and especially highlighted in this example since its private monopolization of a public resource.
I think your argument would need to be that it has no sympathetic victims.
In any case, local monopolies that come from land are a common theme, not just for ski resorts. It's literally what land ownership is--or even just a 99 year leasehold, even with no freehold 'owning'.
The usual solution is property taxes (or land value taxes) to have the taxman soak up the benefits of any monopoly.