I am advocating political action for change in a democracy. Unless you live in a country that doesn't claim to be a democracy, this applies to any democracy. Just because your democracy is being screwed by the power to be, doesn't mean you stop believing in it and stop fighting for it.
The issue is that the medicine you are proposing is oftentimes worse than the disease.
You call for increased regulations as a way to control corporations and "more power to the Government" but don't acknowledge the number of times that the elites have subverted the institutions for their own benefit. Sorry for the bluntness, but that is either malice or stupidity.
You completely ignored my argument that is important to look at the scale and reach of the democratic institution you're dealing with. It's all good if you say that you are working for democracy. It is not okay of your idea of democracy is to have some federal bureaucrat responsible in making decisions that affect so many people at once and does not take into account the desires and peculiarities of the people in the local level. I don't want Federal Government being responsible for and the arbiter of matters that are in the realm of the city council, much like I don't want the city council to step into things that should be in the realm of my neighbors association. The scale of power and reach matters. Do you understand that?
It seems your idea of "fighting for democracy" is in advocating more power and authority in an single entity and more central planning. History is filled with examples where centralization of power has always led to tyranny and abuse. Road to hell paved with good intentions and all...
So, before you start advocating for regulations that can affect so many people and have so many catastrophic unintended consequences, consider acting on the change on the smallest possible level: you. Once you do it and can honestly tell that the change was good, then you go a little bit higher in your circle and advocate for them to adopt the policies you did. Go bottom-up, not top-down. Not only is the most realistic way to affect change, it is the most ethical one.
> It seems your idea of "fighting for democracy" is in advocating more power and authority in an single entity and more central planning.
No, that isn't my idea at all - decentralisation and independence of institutions matter in a democracy. And I consider regulatory bodies as a NECESSARY institution of democracy that strive to balance the needs of the executive, the corporates and the people (consumers). Democracy is all about balancing everyone's needs and corporates too have a role, just as the consumers do too.
As a citizen of a country that was once enslaved by one of the largest corporate of its time (East India Company)^, to me you are the ignorant one here if you think that regulation has no role in a democracy.
If your best example of a "corporate" that got so big and powerful to the point of enslaving a nation is one that was financed and supported by the largest Empire at the time, we should really re-frame the debate.
Which regulations do you think would've stopped East India from becoming what it did, and what democratic institutions do you think would have effectively restricted their unchecked expansion and abuse of power?
Every mention from OP is regarding democracy in the "country" and in the context of a powerful State to "fight" corporate interests. The discourse rings all the Socialist/Social-Democratic talking points. Not buying the idea that he is talking about local communities and direct democracies.
While I do believe in decentralization and am an advocate for it, I don't think it works well in the context of consumer rights that we are discussing. Different regulatory laws at different levels and in different states will just create a hassle for both the consumer and the corporate.
Democracy is about balancing the needs of everyone, and that includes the corporate too. Regulatory bodies should have the necessary independence to hold regular discussions with the stakeholders (the executive, the corporates and the people) so that appropriate regulations can be drafted and more importantly fairly enforced.
It is in the nature of corporate to vie for power with the sovereign and thus in a democracy it is very much necessary to ensure that the corporate never gain gain an upper hand to do so. Regulations can definitely help with this. But ultimately it all about finding the right balance as hurting the corporates too is not the aim and in the best interest of a nation.
Again, your discourse comes with lots of "shoulds" that History has shown to fail whenever it gets confronted with the reality of geopolitics and the structure of power. It sounds oh-so-nice on paper, but paper accepts anything.
It is very abstract. You constantly talk about "the need of regulations" but don't get to specifics. You hope that by hiding in complexity under some abstract body things will work out. In reality, those "regulatory bodies with necessary independence to balance the needs of everyone" will be undeniably influenced by interests groups and shaped by the very people you want to avoid having too much power. Worse still, they get to be put in this position of power indirectly and out of reach from people to express their will through vote or elections.
No matter how much you talk, at the end of the day we all should be asking ourselves what are the things that we want to "regulate" and make it the systems as clear as possible to avoid regulatory traps.
Here is my proposal for a system that can control the abuse of power by corporate entities and at the same time avoid this trap of believing that "regulations" are magic dust that makes anything better:
1. Put a hard cap on the headcount of a corporation. Any company that gets past a certain size (say a few hundred employees) has to be split up by the end of the fiscal year.
2. No single person can be a board member or manager at more than one corporation. No subsidiaries shenanigans, no shell corporations, no "holdings". People and companies can have investments anywhere they want, but these should grant them any executive control over the board.
3. Governments must never bail out a company. If no company is "too big to fail", there are no systemic risk and bail-outs are not required.
That is it. By limiting corporations by size, you avoid any single entity to dominate the space, you promote healthy competition, you avoid systemic risks, you avoid rampant inequality and corruption, we don't get lost in a sea of abstractions and we avoid the hell of regulatory capture. We might lose the "benefit" of economies of scale and we will never see a "Unicorn-style startup" and we will never be talking about "FAANG" again, but I think that would be a good thing overall.