I will concede that there are many reasonable social frameworks designed to maximize societal wealth in the long run. You are simply describing your own version.

After all, capitalism is one solution to this very complex problem of resource allocation. It's not without flaws, of course: e.g. externalities. That's where regulation steps in. It's possible to get companies to pay for the negative externalities they are creating or even stop altogether (see: pollution). A theme in my post will be: let's not throw the baby (capitalism) out with the bath water (negative externalities).

Here are some points I came across reading your post.

1) You say that products should be priced close to their cost, that they should not charge "the highest possible price". Why? If Apple forcefully lowered their prices you could actually argue that Apple is trying to squeeze competitors out. Apple is hugely efficient. If they charge slightly above cost, do you think any other company would be able to sell anything remotely similar for a reasonable price?

I know you're going to say that Apple uses underhanded means to be so efficient. I agree with that. By abusing human rights, Apple is getting a cheaper deal unfairly.

But your claim that "products should be priced near cost" is flat out wrong. If the observation "Apple unfairly gets highly efficient" led to a policy "let's force all companies to sell at slightly above cost" to "benefit consumers", that would actually exacerbate the issue, with everyone rushing to abuse human rights in order to compete with Apple's efficiency. Profits are not evil. If you're going to target Apple's ethics, by all means do so, but do not use false economic arguments to support that claim.

2) You want geniuses and great inventions to come about, but then once they do (e.g. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates) you don't want them to make too much money. How much is too much? For you, billions. For others, millions. Maybe even just thousands. Where do you draw the line between "too much" and "enough"? Do you think it would be a good precedent to force all companies making over a million dollars a year to donate half of it to some charity? I think this is yet another slightly irrelevant argument you make to support your main point, which is that Apple shouldn't be able to get away abusing human rights. To verify this, imagine: suppose Apple makes billions but also supports human rights everywhere by only working with legitimate companies. Do you now have respect for Apple? Or do you think they should still do more things for society? If the latter is the case, you're basically saying that all wealth should be redistributed by law, to some arbitrary degree (maybe the voters decide?). Hmm... not exactly communism, but not capitalism either. I have no additional points here, I haven't had time to imagine such a world in detail. I won't dismiss it outright, though.

3) Patent monopolies. I do agree that patents are tricky. On one hand, you want society to benefit as soon and as much as possible from new stuff. On the other hand, you want to encourage inventors to spend lots of money on research with the promise that they will be rewarded handsomely with patent monopolies. If you remove patents, you risk a world where no one will ever sink mounds of money and time into research (I would even contend that this world wouldn't be quite so bad, seeing projects like Wikipedia, as long as theft is not tolerated). If you support patents too strongly, you risk a world where society is squeezed dry even after the original inventor passes away (I believe the incumbents want this way, and it's bad). There is a middle ground here...

Indeed, your last statement really is the heart of your argument, which is what you should really focus on instead of spurious economic arguments: neglecting human rights is a negative externality. We as a society should pay to uphold human rights and punish those who do not.

EDIT: Some grammar issues.