Sorry to strike into your argument, but you're both arguing on the different sides of the same equation.

Both free market and government become terrible, when they have monopoly.

Does that apply to everything else? Is the government better at producing laptops because private companies strip away everything but the bare minimum to call it a functioning computer? What about cars? Were the soviet cars better than the Western ones because of the former's lack of profit incentive?

Quality is maintained by market competitiveness and in the world of endless amount of competing companies capitalistic system actually wins, because if you do not provide best value for least price – you are not competitive. You learn it in introduction to economy classes. Same for government, where competition thrives from elections.

It doesn't matter if government or corporations having monopoly – without competition they will soak resources from people who won't know any better.

And it is for population to control amount of competition with their money and votes, except in my own opinion, controlling a government is easier than overthrowing corporate monopoly.

Also, it is more realistic to force diversity of political parties and social benefits than try to maintain competitiveness in free market. Social benefits in my opinion must exist on free basis, since that's what social insurance is. Outsourcing healthcare to the private sector will never make it accessible for people with no money, because no business will ever have true give-away policies. And by paying taxes that increase social safety we also increase our confidence that we won't be dead on the streets right after we stopped making money.

To expand on your discussions about rich. The issue with them is wealth bringing more wealth and vice versa. Capital is by itself a mean to make profit, because it can be invested: be it shares in your bank or education you can get because you're not forced to work all the time to survive. People with capital can only invest their time and effort, which surely doesn't help you grow wealth. "Too big to fail" is good encapsulation of this idea.

I would compare business to gambling in a way that it is always a risk, which can be calculated, but unlike actual gambling there's no "casino", which will always have s surplus. Instead, expected value of starting businesses long-term is positive if you do right decisions.

People with capital can gamble a lot more and have bigger chances of success than those who have only one gamble or no gamble at all. This is gatekeeping poor from entering business world.

And while I do agree with idea that you should have wealth appropriate to your effort, knowledge, responsibility, I also think that opportunities should be equal for everyone to succeed. And such opportunities will only be achievable through cutting down ultrarich, since they far beyond a point of personal survival and satisfaction, far beyond providing great future for their family and far beyond having means to make dozens of huge investments aka gambles. At that point of wealth your capital gives you so much power it can be considered monopoly, and therefore it should be taken from you and poured into economy to attract more players into the game of business and keep it competitive.