Dead on. All the power to control comes from the government. All big companies enjoying monopolistic power or a phantom version of it (e.g. Google) do so with government support.

Minimize government, and big companies automatically lose power, or are producing value.

Marx won the politicians, that's what happened. They want power and control, thus they love Marxism.

When objectively applied then are tools for the recognition of property rights.

The altruistic anti-capitalistic mentality of the altruist makes need for a needful base which is filled with any belief that advocates 'from the able to the needful'. Marxism fits that well and Objectivism not. So what is created is a welfare system that is now out of control under a mixed economy. Many will not read AS because Rand was an atheist or can not accept Objectivism which is a rational philosophy. A partial acceptance causes contradictions with reality. One must not accept Rand's emotional and sometimes irrational beliefs that might occur in AS. Remember that it is story but full of stuff that can be integrated into one's personal knowledge.

She's right as far as she goes, but needs to talk about regulation.

Regulation of business -- any line of business -- is sold as protecting the public, but that's a lie. Always. The real purpose of regulation is to drive small, and especially new, competitors out of that line of business and keep them out, thus reserving the field to a small number of giant firms. This process does not have to go all the way to one firm -- a literal monopoly -- to enable the abusive behavior that defines what most of us call monopoly.

For instance, there are hundreds of banks. But banking is so over-regulated that it's impractical for new banks to arise, and they wouldn't be allowed to have better policies about, say, privacy or overdraft fees than the existing banks. That's effectively a monopoly. And until the public sees regulation for what it is and demands its abolition, it will stay that way, and we will have fewer and fewer choices.

If one wants to quibble and say that monopolies are only perpetuated with assistance from government, I'm in perfect agreement. But the monopoly still exists along market fundamentals under the terms of a trademark, copyright, or patent.

Here's a classic example: Velcro. When it came out, it was in high demand and could only be produced by a single manufacturer. Did that manufacturer/inventor do anything contrary to the market? Nope. But his revenue stream sure dried up when the patent expired and others could now produce the same material. But they couldn't use the name: Velcro is still a trademarked name and that trademark won't expire until long after the inventor's death.

Yeah. Looked at that again and I can't believe I misspelled his name. Doh! https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc

"and thus no more a monopoly than your monopoly over your home."

There's a significant difference: I'm not trying to sell my home to a large audience in the open market. I can say that I have monopoly - that is priority - use of my home for sure, but the ultimate beneficiary for my home is exactly one buyer. Once I sell my home, my potential audience is gone. Not so with musical performances, books, movies, etc. which can go on for decades and be sold to millions of customers. Michael Jackson's estate is still flush with money even though the entertainer himself has been dead more than a decade. Disney... Well, we could go on and on about Disney.

I guess that there has to be some rule to guide free markets. It’s only fair that I have the right to eat or sell or let rot the tomato that I grew. But, the nose of the camel always seems to have a camel behind it. Hayek and others define the seemingly inevitable cycle of rags to riches to rags that the human race is stuck in. As an old song states, “The best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep.”…. ( Even in free market poker, it is advisable to not count your money when you’re sitting at the table…..)

Aren’t patents and copyrights tools of the government that interfere with free markets?

Weird Al is a champion of good grammar and presumably of good spelling. He's Weird, not Wierd or Wired.

Intellectual property is a difficult subject. blarman's "You could argue," indicates some of the difficulty. It was easier when all writing belonged to the Church, and heretics were burnt at the stake. It is, however, a /property/ described in law, and thus no more a monopoly than your monopoly over your home. Government, preferably an objective one, is necessary. Not the "competing governments" I've heard some libertarians propose.

Patents are intended to expire after a period of time (14-20 years depending on the type). This gives the inventor a period of time to be the sole beneficiary of the invention. After that time, the patented device becomes part of the "public domain" and is available to all, thus ending the monopoly.

"The universities are the real villains in the picture."

BOOM! Mic drop.

I will say that there is one critical aspect that is supported by Rand which does give a monopoly and it is not government-supported: that of the copyright, trademark, or patent. Musicians are probably the quintessential example of this: an entire industry made of monopolists! If you're a Shakira fan, you can't get Shakira music by listening to Elton John. Same with Wierd Al and Taylor Swift (although because Wierd Al does parody you could argue that you're getting the tune but with different lyrics). After musicians you would have the motion picture industry. No one can do a remake of "Casablanca" without getting permission from the original producers.

Let's also not forget that Rand, herself, lauded the monopoly of a good idea protected from intellectual theft when she invented Rearden Metal in AS - not to mention Galt's atmospheric generators!

"The liberal professors are the villains."

Nailed that one.

Greed and the desire for the incompetent to rule by brute force

Yeah sad. George Bernard Shaw once wrote that "whenever the government robs Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul.

Marx appealed to the parasitical humanoids already in power.
Same reason Keynes won out over Mises...

She, clearly, was correct. Why didn't her argument for laissez-faire capitalism become the dominant politico-philosophical force in America that it should have been?
Why did Marx win out?