[brazzy]

You said

> Saying that only "many players can ensure progress continues" and thus prohibiting companies to merge is interfering with economic freedom in the name of "I know better"

Sounds like you're advocating that all mergers should be allowed, even if they produce monopolies, and that not having many players would be OK.

The notion that regulation which disallows two billion-dollar companies with thousands of employees to merge because they'd afterwards dominate an important market has anything to do with "the right for people to work together" is somewhere between fundamentalist and disingenuous.

[grondilu]

If a company ends up being the only one providing a product or service on a market, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as other companies are not prohibited to enter the market if they are capable to. And I repeat : you have no right to prevent people from working together if they want to. It's none of your business.

If you're upset with a company dominating a market, just create your own company to compete with it.

[brazzy]

Yes, there is a lot wrong with that, as there are often significant inherent barriers to enter a market, and lots of things an incumbent can do to hinder competition, not all of which can be made illegal.

And a good government has every right to prevent this situation, that is exactly its business.