I (as a free-market advocate) consider law enforcement and regulation as two very different things. Law enforcment being the retaliatory use of force by the government against people who have violated the individual rights of another (theft, violence, etc) by initiated the use of force. I consider law enforcement a fundamental requirement of a free society (protection from looters and thugs), but regulation the antithesis of a free society (initiating the use of force to control people).

In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner. Now this doesn't seem so bad, when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea, however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want. This is especially true when you have a government known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations.

What happens at 100 years that suddenly changes your outrage?

That's detailing what the standard for 'abuse' is, and not the standard for monopoly. Presumably, a small railroad and oil concern, which only has 1% of the market for each would not be considered a monopoly even though it may charge competitors more to ship the oil. So the question still remains, what constitutes a monopoly? (other than 100% of the market with competitors barred from entry by law)

That doesn't resolve anything though. How can you know if you're abusing a monopoly position if you don't know whether or not you're a monopoly?

What is the standard companies are measured against to determine if they are monopoly or not? 90% market share? What ever 'feels' about right? How can one avoid crossing anti-trust laws if one cannot know when they will apply or not?

Whilst this doesn't apply for internal emails and documents, and I realise there is a difference in storing archives insecurely on Google's servers than simply transmitting insecurely, I do find it interesting that many people are concerned about Google reading the contents of their email/documents, when they have been sending and receiving emails/documents for years in plain text, over routers and servers they know nothing about.

Politicians have been exhaling excrement for centuries.

By your own claim, someone who is twice as rich as you, has twice as many things to protect, should pay twice as much tax ("paying their fair share"). A flat tax accomplishes that. What you describe with progressive tax is someone who is twice as rich, with twice as many things to protect, paying 3 times as much tax; i.e. the rich paying for the services you use in addition to their own.

I would like to know by what standard anyone considers Microsoft a monopoly? They don't have 99.9% of the OS market, there are dozens of alternatives (many free ones, that are just as, if not more capable) that can freely be installed by anyone who is inclined to. No government has granted protection to Microsoft by regulating competitors, and Microsoft isn't holding a gun to anyone's head. How is Microsoft considered a monopoly by any other "standard" than being the market leader with would-be competitors whining that Microsoft puts their own interests first?