It's getting downvotes because it was posted in bad faith. Many Americans would say we give corporations the freedom to act how they wish, and we give individuals the freedom to do business with the corporations they choose. The argument to be had is how much the government needs to watch out for the citizenship, because every "protective" law they pass is a restriction on the aforementioned freedoms.
The American school of thought (I'm calling it that to differentiate from the European school of thought) is that the amount of government meddling in interactions between two parties not involving the government should be kept to a minimum, and the individual should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. When you frame it this way, you might get less downvotes and more responses.
> we give individuals the freedom to do business with the corporations they choose
Is it really bad faith when this belief is obviously horseshit? Government sponsored oligopolies exist partly because we allow corporations to exercise their freedom to act how they wish at the expense of the individual's freedom to do business with the corporations they choose. The government doesn't really act to watch out for the citizenship in this context and as a result doesn't restrict the freedom of corporations to act as they wish. Given this, the statement that "Americans seem to be relatively more in favor of allowing corporations to screw them than many other countries" just seems obvious.
> The argument to be had is how much the government needs to watch out for the citizenship, because every "protective" law they pass is a restriction on the aforementioned freedoms.
This doesn't work. It might in a "history" book that is intentionally written to espouse pride and nationalism in your nation's ideals, but this is not the reality of human beings.
The above __might__ work if all parties worked with good intent, but that's not what corporations are. They need to be governed, otherwise they will infect your government in order to produce a reality that is better for their existence.
This is not theory, it is practical knowledge of the world we live in.
I really really wish the pro-corporate Americans are able to divorce themselves from their fantasy of what corporatism might look like when padded by bullshit about "freedom", as opposed to what it has already done and will continue to do to their government.
> They need to be governed, otherwise they will infect your government in order to produce a reality that is better for their existence.
Indeed. I feel people learn some things in school that are essentially "fixed points" of economics - like supply/demand balance - and internalize the view that markets are static. They're not. They're dynamic systems. They optimize their own environments. It's as you say - corporations (and businesses in general) will happily make the legal system change to favor them. It's what markets do. Anything that can make improve profits is sought - whether it's a better product, a better marketing lie, or a change in laws.
This school of thought works as long as individuals are free to do business with corporations. It breaks down when there are monopolies whether they are farm equipment companies or platform operators like Amazon or Apple.
I'd just like to point out that Apple isn't anywhere near a monopoly in any way at all. Nothing is forcing you to use Apple devices or services: there are lots of alternatives. In fact, in the mobile phone market alone, Apple is actually a pretty small player globally, at maybe 15% or less. It's very easy to avoid being an Apple customer.
It's not that hard to avoid using Amazon either. Anything they sell can be bought somewhere else. But Amazon is frequently the cheapest and most convenient option, so it might feel like it's hard to avoid unless you're willing to pay a premium to buy somewhere else. But this just isn't the case with Apple: you have to pay a huge premium to be an Apple customer. Apple is successful solely because of marketing and brand cachet, not pricing like Amazon.
Finally, there's no monopolies in farm equipment either. John Deere customers lock themselves into that vendor somewhat willingly (though there is an argument that in many places, the only local equipment dealer is a JD dealer). There are alternatives: New Holland, Kubota, etc.
The problem is, between copyrights, patents and limited liability, we give companies a huge amount of power over consumers. That's before we start writing about the power money provides large companies.
The American school of thought (I'm calling it that to differentiate from the European school of thought) is that the amount of government meddling in interactions between two parties not involving the government should be kept to a minimum, and the individual should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. When you frame it this way, you might get less downvotes and more responses.