Kevin's argument is a classic example of the losing side of prisoner's dilemma. As brief as it goes, if police aprehend two suspects but need testimony from one to get at lease one conviction for the suspected crime, the technique is to isolate both of them and offer each the opportunity to go free in exchange for damaging testimony versus their cohort. Thus each suspect is faced with a choice; if both don't talk, both go free. If one talks and the other doesn't, the one who attempted to work as a team goes to jail while the one who attempted to thwart his cohort goes free. Invariably both choose to talk. This applies well to why cartels such as Opec rarely succeed in their efforts to raise the price of the good that they could control with cooperation. If everyone elected to get less for their money and buy as locally as possible on each purchase decision, there would be plenty more (inefficient) jobs available to the populace. That much is certain. But to think that this idea can perpetuate is foolish, and in due time this will be realized by the Kevins of the world as well as all middlemen distributors who seek to maintain their windfall profits per unit. Nonetheless, even I guilty of taking the loser's side of prisoner's dilemma in an effort to be an idealist. I choose not to own a gun nor knowingly maintain a friendship with anyone that does, vainly hoping that if no one had a gun we'd all be safer in the process. Nonetheless, if I'm shot I'm sure my dying thought will be that I'd wished I'd had a gun just before my killer tried to shoot me.