I see "less oversight is One True Way to encourage competition" more as a conservative talking point than as a good faith anti-monopoly proposal. As a tactic, deregulation seems to be very good at reinforcing the social order (it's usually exploitable in proportion to current standing) but extremely mediocre at encouraging competition when compared to the alternatives.

If you ask a business about their moats, they'll talk your ear off about network effects, two sided markets, last mile infrastructure, brand power, property portfolios, scale... and if you listen from the inside, you'll hear about dumping, bribery, buying out competitors, and leveraging existing monopolies into adjacent domains. Sure, once in a blue moon regulatory capture will slip onto that list as a minor player, but it's the clumsy scrawny kid on Team Anticompetition. It might deserve 10%, maaaaybe 20% of your trust-busting efforts -- but 100%? There are only two reasons to give it 100% of your attention: either you don't know the bigger, stronger, nastier members of the anti-competition team (implausible, if you've been in business for any period of time) or you have an ulterior motive. Since there's an obvious and massively profitable ulterior motive, I tend to believe in incentives over words on this one.

While regulatory capture is real and it's a problem and the solution is deregulation, I am mighty suspicious whenever I see this proposal alone rather than in a lineup of more traditional trust-busting strategies like Sherman Act litigation or tax policy, which tend to fall on the other side of the big/small govt debate.

>it's usually exploitable in proportion to current standing

As I reckon it, standing is derived from the system. The system gives license to Apple to patent certain aspects of design, trademarks, etc. They don't have a truly market-derived end, what they have is derived from a much greater system in competition with others who've been borne similarly by systemic effects rather than market pressure. Restoring market pressures by breaking down such walls - certainly a progressive talking point - seems more likely to induce competition and thus affecting prices and priorities across the board.

I'd also make the aside here that I expect a large proportion of the businesses extant today existed in a "pre-capture" environment and made up the "post-capture" environment up for themselves, that is to say they wrote the book on what defines dumping by bribery which also bought them the lax oversight on antitrust - giving them license to subsume competition and permeate the market and expand.

That is to say take away an avenue like IP from companies like Adobe for example, and commodify their products. Conversely, giving competitors license to make bold faces copies of competitor's products results. In either case, I would expect the end to be very similar: more real competition as in driven by market pressure and selection.

With that said, such a policy wouldn't remedy conglomeration, which I would definitely submit is a problem, but ostensibly in many domains this would be a self-correcting as the barrier of entry doesn't require reinventing the wheel as a non-wheel-geometric-rolling-variation-on-a-circle-that's-never-quite right.