Criticizing Hazlett of being too rhetorical, while typing a wall of text without a single objective refutation to one claim is hypocritical at the least. It sounds like you don't want to stick your own neck out and make an incorrect statement.
If you want a specific examples of arguments omitted he criticises inflationary policies at great length whilst ignoring the underlying reason for favouring some level of inflation (incentivising investment)
In general a real market is imperfect in any case where firms make profit above their cost of capital -- i.e. most of it -- since perfect competition is supposed to drive profits to zero everywhere. The employees of a firm making profits certainly can be paid more without imperiling production, since the profits could simply be reduced.
Almost throughout, Hazlett makes exactly this (very common, for those with a political axe to grind) fallacy, supposing implicitly everywhere that no company is profitable despite the fact that we are manifestly not living in that world.
This is simply false. You are confusing profit with economic profit - they aren't the same thing. Profit is revenue in excess of costs, while economic profit is risk-adjusted profit in excess of other investment opportunities.
I.e., in a noncompetitive market, your best investment is to seek out companies with high economic profit and invest in them. In a competitive one, your best investment is a diversified portfolio indexed to the broader economy.
Incidentally, monopsony models of the labor market have pretty terrible predictive power. They are loved by PhD holding activists since they justify many feel-good policies, but they don't work very well outside of certain narrow fields (e.g., PhD chemists).