[Cornelius267]

> If you're arguing the government should be able to break up any company it likes, for any reason it decides

That's great, because I'm not arguing that. My post does not imply as such either. You are creating a fake argument that is easier for you to argue against.

"Ought to" is the basis of rule of law. By what measure do you decide that a "monopoly" is bad? It has certain outcomes, some positive, some negative, but on balance government in previous generations decided that they are negative.

But once you know that the outcome is negative, what do you do about it? You only take another step and break it apart if you decide that you "ought to" do so. Because you place value in a healthy society, or you place value in non-monopolistic market competition, or you place value in something else. But whatever you choose, in order to justify actually action you inevitably rely on an "ought to."

If the reason for breaking up monopolies is to improve society, in some broad sense, then you could use a similar reason to break up companies that are harmful to society. We do sanction companies that damage the environment, or lie to consumers with false claims, etc.

There is always an "ought to."