[mattlutze]

In a maximally capitalist system, corporations are only incentivised to make changes when those changes improve their profit generation. If environmental improvements would decrease net income, they generally won't do it on their own as it would be inefficient.

Similarly, companies won't generally elect to weaken their bargaining position with employees, such as paying higher wages, reducing working hours, providing PTO or fair hiring/firing practices.

One of the main purposes of government is to represent the will and interests of the general person, whether that's internationally or in collaboration with the companies that provide jobs.

[big_curses]

"Similarly, companies won't generally elect to weaken their bargaining position with employees"

Agreed, but I think the force to combat this should be unions purely through collective bargaining rather than either side using regulation backed by the monopoly on force that is the government.

"One of the main purposes of government is to represent the will and interests of the general person"

I hold a stripped back view of the government. That it's proper function should only be to protect the rights of individuals via it's monopoly on force. Of course, 'what are an individual's rights?' is a whole other conversation. The government does provide many legitimate services, but they are things that I think can, and should, be done privately. The fact that the government has the monopoly on force is one of the reasons why it's purview should be so restrained.