What's to prevent that in a slightly less monopolized system? In some cases, players in a market may all even independently arrive at the same solution and deci

What's to prevent that in a slightly less monopolized system? In some cases, players in a market may all even independently arrive at the same solution and decide not to undercut competition, they may add additional fees (e.g. tuition) to universities across the board. They may find canteens unsustainable with a profit motive. Functionally, the consumer has the same problem: competition isn't giving them alternative choices and variety, policy and options are mandated to them. Providers may find school canteens too expensive so they close them, the one who thinks an opportunity may open one but be forced to charge a fee too high for participants to consider so ultimately lunches get packed anyways. In theory the market dictates these things from consumer consensus but consumer consensus is really just some degree of a manipulated majority opinion over w minitory. In practice I don't care who dictates it, my voice (dollar in this case) doesn't seem to matter all that much in contexts without healthy competition. There's definitely some sort of threshold level of actual competition (however we define that) that has to exist to create a landscape of options for the consumer. As time progresses, the argument for private enterprise grows weaker, in my opinion. The solution is for markets to become less anti-competitive, to allow real competition (not sure how we achieve this). An issue is, no one wants to do this and is incentivized to be anti-competitive in every way they can.