The less concentrated the market, the less regulation required because natural market forces will have larger impacts. Once a corporation reaches a significant size, they largely outgrow the market being able to influence them in a large way, hence the need for more (and stricter) regulation.
Monopolies, if well-regulated, aren't as evil as they seem.
EDIT: I should put my thesis in here: It is easy for regulatory capture to happen in the case of monopoly and regulator. I would also expect the monopoly plus regulator to perform more poorly than either a competitive company or a public entity.
There are a lot of examples where regulatory capture happens to ensure that a near monopoly can comfortably maintain its position, and it strangles competition from startups.
That may explain Google search, but not e.g. Luxotica, which is a monopoly in eye-wear. I'm not sure how much of the centralization is of the "I go to the best provider for me" kind, vs. the "Katamari Damacy" style, but the former is only good for customer in the short term, and the latter not even then.
Free markets and democracies are good at a lot of things, but self preservation is not one of them - that has to be applied from "outside" the system, early and often.
In some countries, said behavior is literally illegal or impractical. Killing small business would be the death of capitalism and freedom.
Capitalism and capitalists would be fine. They would just operate in a non-competitive market. Which is preferred anyway once you have a dominant market position.
Which is to say it is against the will of the people,
However I will defend to the death my right to exchange goods with you. I'm assuming you and I are just normal citizens who don't control multi-billion dollar businesses?
"a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism."
As we know there is a huge spectrum of investment strategies, from VCs to Bond holders etc.
Some capitalists like VCs, absolutely value market freedom, others likely don't, but it's too large a swatch of people to generalize by saying they don't care about economic freedom.
This means that 100% stock vehicles are in demand, and Volvo and Saab and BMW benefit heavily compared to a modified Jeep, which would make more sense for Sweden's enthusiasts
In short, economic bullying.
Since the early 80's I've watched Microsoft grow, and don't see it about raw merit at all. It's poker, not chess.
the simplistic retort would be that "value" condenses all that complexity down into a single metric, but we know how well optimizing for one metric works out. we get all kinds of distortions and mis-aligned incentives. we might even name that class of problems "externalities".
the corporate free lunch ain't free. bigness gets paid for by us little people being subjected to thousands of small cuts (decision short-circuiting caused by information assymetries, paying usurious fees on loans, etc.). don't fall for that duplicitous platitude.
Obviously, I'm not talking about infrastructure monopolies as the consumer has little to no choice there between things like mobile/internet/electric/gas/water/sewer/waste removal providers.
your argument is a form of reductio ad absurdum because you're saying your preferred option (buy from large corps) is the only smart and practical choice (so why consider anything else?). but people (like me) choose differently all the time.
with that said, yes, people do take that shortcut (limit choice to large corps) because it's less cognitive load in a world overloaded with moneyed, attention-seeking (self-)promotion, but that certainly doesn't mean it's the best or only choice given the plethora of considerations.
Therefore, customers will be forced to always pay the maximum amount for a good, instead of being able to bargain for a lower price.
As capitalism is based on creating efficiencies of market through customer choice, I have to wonder why mercantilism is back in vogue with a new coat of paint.
In the long run, it would be beneficial for all consumers to be able to select from multiple sellers, but in the short term, it's beneficial for each consumer to purchase from the whomever is giving them the best value. That means everyone uses one of the top few banks, one of the top few retailers, one of the top few electronic device manufacturers, etc.