Thanks for coming back to comment on another one of my articles. I'd like to try to address your points one by one. Let's see how I do...
My rhetorical questions imply a lack of suffrage. All of those questions point to policy decisions and outcomes resulting from poor governance.
Low voter turnouts are a direct result of safe seats in Congress and the duopoly enjoyed by the two major political parties. Voter suppression is merely evidence of an effort to maintain duopoly conditions.
Even if monopolies are natural, that suggests necessity to the point regulation of that monopoly as a utility would be a useful policy decision and outcome. Instead, natural monopolies are used to socialize the risk while privatizing the profits.
I have been learning about economics. Economics in America seems to be, amass money through a business while exploiting workers without giving them a voice in the company, thereby stagnating wages. Then use some of that money to capture regulators further entrenching your position in the market. Ensure that your captured regulators are safe by influencing elections and limiting primary candidates to the greatest extent possible, to only those who are sympathetic to your business.
I'm well aware of the dynamics described in the book you suggest. But in a free market, there is no reason why labor should underform capital. Unless, the legal and political environment is skewed to favor those who have capital. This again is a sign of a lack of suffrage on the part of the people who don't have capital.
I'm sure we could review many possible solutions, but I think it really comes down to something like this: Why does one man seek to exploit another man at the others' expense? Why does one man seek to control another? I've hinted at these questions in some of my other articles. You might consider reviewing some of them, too. I offer the following as a starting point: