This diary chronicles arguments I have had with a conservative, deregulation oriented friends of mine over the course of several years. I know I'm not the only one who has them; maybe this approach will help others. I present my case for strong consumer protection in terms republicans understand well; mistrust for big government.
One of the persistent threads within that conservative group is the firmly held belief that business and government are somehow, fundamentally different in the harm that they can cause people when they behave unethically. They argue that big business is, by definition, not the same as government.
While one can freely admit that a corporation, with a profit motive, no democratic accountability in corporate officers, and (at least nominal) subservience to the law is different from a government, that isn't the question. The question is whether a corporation, either through its own power or a partnership of power with a government, can cause the same troubles as a bad government.
The misbehavior by the British Crown that led to the revolution were grievances with respect to life, liberty, and property.
Let's look at the way corporations with power can deprive us of life, liberty, and property. This is not just an academic exercise in how a corporation could deprive us of those things, but a look at how corporations can and do deprive us of those things under current US law.
To illustrate, we'll go through the dangers of a government that misuses its powers. We can glean a historical perspective on this based on the limits that the US constitution placed upon the activities of the government. Then I will show, in parallel, how corporate or private organizations, when they reach a certain size, can accomplish the same ends, sometimes through the same means.
The first is control over life-and-death. Just as the government has the power to define what does and does not constitute a capital offense. In terms of quality of life, governments have broad powers to set policy that directly affect the quality of life of its citizens. In the US Constitution, the preamble, the statement of why the Constitution exists in the first place, admonishes every individual tasked with upholding it that, includes 'promoting the general welfare'.
Can corporations really get to the point where they can make such life-or-death decisions? Of course they can.
Once a single corporation or group of corporations achieves a 'stable' market dominance, then they are free to set policy as they please. This dominance may be informal, in the case of companies adopting copycat policies, or may be more formalized. Either way, if the good is inelastic, it usually means that it is necessary for sound quality of life. This includes things like nutritious food, healthcare, drinking water, etc. Once both conditions are achieved, corporate policy can (and often does) mean the difference between life and death.
(I'm going out of order, but there is a reason)
The third is control over property (and naturally, money). Article 1, section 9 of the US constitution states that congress shall make no 'ex post facto' law. If you did something that was legal yesterday, you will never be punished for it.
On the other hand, contracts have no such limitation. The key element for a corporation to be abusive with money is sufficient market share that they can resist most complaints and not murder the bottom line. Stable corporate oligarchies have the easiest time doing so, but any corporation offering a 'necessary' service (like car maintenance or cell service) can establish such business situations. The trick with many contracts is that they don't have a clear 'closeout'; which means that a repair shop in need of money could, in theory, send bills for 'administrative costs' to everyone it had done business with in the past year. If the business has erected enough barriers to competition, either through collusion with the rest of the industry in the market, or through lobbying to get favorable legislation past; then there isn't really an option for consumers.
Can a corporation really just come into your house and steal your stuff? In some cases yes they can. Repo men are corporations doing exactly that; so are foreclosures. If you look at websites like www.mouseprint.org and read some of the horror stories of what businesses try to pull, you'll see that this is not just a theoretical problem.
And then, there is the limitations on liberty. Can a corporation really limit your freedom to take your business elsewhere? Once again, the answer is yes.
In the US, personal freedom borders on a sacred right. We take 'due process'; that is, following the laws governing how and when the government may restrict freedom so seriously that known murderers will sometimes walk free when the process is abused.
How can a corporation restrict your liberty? There are plenty of ways, both direct and indirect.
Read about corporate security and notice how broad the powers often are. In many cases, on corporate property, security can take action that is broader in scope then true government police.
Historically, corporations could expand to the point of controlling nearly all economic activity in a particular area. This created actual or de-facto governments out of corporations, in come cases they even established their own currency. Just as when debt and dissolution cost can prevent a corporation from leaving a market, so too can this make people unfree to leave in very real terms, and can go so far as to constitute wage slavery.
This kind of overt control is less prevalent in modern times. Other tools at a corporation's disposal include destruction of a person's credit, making it far more difficult to conduct business. By the same token, a corporation can use its vastly greater resources to participate in SLAPPs, legal harassment and criminal complaints. The key issue here is that all laws attempt to define a line and a balance between legitimate redress of grievances and protecting people from harassment. The problem comes in that large corporations can hire plenty of lawyers to make sure they stay just on the 'good' side of the law while accomplishing their aims, and lobby governments to pass laws to reduce the penalty for violating the law (and the 'cost of doing business').
What about other abuses of government that we have laws on the books to protect us from?
How about corrupt courts? Corporations use binding arbitration, for profit enterprises that create false, kangaroo courts to circumvent a state's legal system.
How about terminating corrupt or illegal practices? While governments have common law protection from lawsuits, the US government, and most state governments, waive that right under many circumstances.
Think, however, about how tort claims are often handled. In civil cases, the standard penalty for property crimes is traditionally defined in terms of money. How does this relate to the idea of sovereign immunity for corporations? Since corporations only engage in civil activity covered by torts, typically the only damages someone who is wronged can seek are in terms of money. Corporations lobby to limit this and maintain large litigation reserves. Once a corporation maneuvers itself into a position where periodic judgments against it don't threaten its corporate survival, then maintaining a litigation reserve is just a 'cost of doing business'. Put another way, once a corporation hits critical mass, it can buy something that looks very much like sovereign immunity for the cost of a few litigations a year.
Now, my conservative friends always raise a few objections.
What about competition? Well, there are things you can do about that. And one can raise both financial and legal obstacles to prevent that.
What about the choice of who to do business with given that we have antitrust laws in place? Well, remember, when every player in a market adopts the same rules (abuses) then there's not necessarily any difference.
Remember, the free market is based on certain principles. When those principles are violated by organizations with a lot of power using that power to 'cheat' the system, what ends up is not a free market, but market regulation by corporations. Since only a few unethical actors can make a corporation into a nightmare to deal with, there is reason to be vigilant.
What's the upshot here? Well, if you mistrust the government, mistrust corporations as well. Remember the difference between a corporation and the government is twofold. A corporation is based on a profit motive, and has no obligation to work for the public good. A government has both.
This is why I support powerful, well funded and well empowered consumer protection agencies; preferably agencies with teeth, rather than letting congress play whack-a-abuse at its normally glacial pace. Corporations understand the first rule of nomic well; "that which is not prohibited is permitted" and will always find clever ways around the law if we are not vigilant.