No. Modern mixed economies, which have replaced capitalism as the dominant system of the developed world since capitalism was described in the 19th Century, are based on incorporating the features of capitalism that tend toward monopoly, but incorporating other features to impair the development of some monopolies and restrict the adverse impacts of other monopolies.
Capitalism itself does nothing to control monopolies.
For example, if a monopoly in airlines leads to prohibitively expensive plane tickets, then competition from bus lines will serve as a control, and the monopoly for "all transportation types" will be reduced. Unless of course you have the airlines buying out the bus lines. But even in that case, there is a limit to how much they can charge because a new firm can enter and make a new capital investment in that industry. So at most, the monopolist can charge whatever rate would make it prohibitively expensive to enter that industry.
Or you could just hire a hitman. There's no concept of "fair play" in the "physical order of nature".
That's great. So your are writing free puts to my startups' equity?
Ie after you buy me out, I can go and start a new company, threatening to compete again.
As much influence as Google has on internet searches, they could relatively easily be displaced by something better and worth moving to, for example. I've tried DDG, Bing and others, and their products aren't really better, so Google it is. When there are actual consumer costs involved, this becomes a bit more flexible...
As an example, unlike "Demolition Man" I can't really conceive of any chain/restaurant actually controlling all of them, so long as allowing for competition is ensured... However, given ever increasing interpretations of IP protection, I could see the likes of ConAgra actually becoming a controlling factor in all restaurants, more than it already is. This is a case where protectionism is counter to a free market though. IP protections are supposed to be "limited" but are increasingly less so, which makes things worse for society.
Nobody really wants true anarchy, but we've been headed towards so many constraints, that I wouldn't call what we have in corporatism anything resembling free market capitalism, even with natural monopolies.
Article thesis is that funds go around that limit. Not even on purpose, just by their definition. No single company has monopoly but index funds collectively own all of them.
For all the pearl-clutching that goes on about monopolies, you'd think people would twig onto the risks in letting the size of the government grow to such a point where granting favoured friends monopolies is not only possible, but simple to do.
Actual monopolies in real fields are very rare and very fleeting due to competition in the same product lines or substitutes. A monopoly is very difficult to hold without the use of force, and governments are the only legalised users of force.
It is usually a waste of resources to try and break up what are seen as 'monopolies'.