> We live in a neoliberal world where corporate monopolies / oligopolies aren’t even remotely regulated. If you try to do even the gentlest regulation of companies people scream about communism and totalitarianism. Unless the regulation serves the monopolies by making it harder to enter the market.

The thing that enables this is pretty obvious. The population is divided into two camps, the first of which holds the heuristic that regulations are "communism and totalitarianism" and this camp is used to prevent e.g. antitrust rules/enforcement. The second camp holds the heuristic that companies need to be aggressively "regulated" and this camp is used to create/sustain rules making it harder to enter the market.

The problem is that ordinary people don't have the resources to dive into the details of any given proposal but the companies do. So what we need is a simple heuristic for ordinary people to distinguish them: Make the majority of "regulations" apply only to companies with more than 20% market share. No one is allowed to dump industrial waste in the river but only dominant companies have bureaucratic reporting requirements etc. Allow private lawsuits against dominant companies for certain offenses but only government-initiated prosecutions against smaller ones, the latter preventing incumbents from miring new challengers in litigation and requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This even makes logical sense, because most of the rules are attempts to mitigate an uncompetitive market, so applying them to new entrants or markets with >5 competitors is more likely to be deleterious, i.e. drive further consolidation. Whereas if the market is already consolidated then the thicket of rules constrains the incumbents from abusing their dominance in the uncompetitive market while encouraging new entrants who are below the threshold.