[permo-w]

>It sounds like we have a very different idea of what "ethical" means. In answer to your question about "what's stopping them?" - well, just that: ethics, morals, the desire to act decently even when there might be some additional benefit to being sleazy

for some private companies, sure. but the second a company goes public, all of this completely goes out of the window. the only time a publicly traded company acts ethically is when it thinks its public image (read: stock price) will be harmed by acting otherwise

>Waiting for a law to prohibit immoral behavior doesn't seem like a sustainable way for a society to function, even though it does seem to be the way we're trending

as far as I've seen - i.e. the rise and dominance of free-market economics - we're trending and have been trending since the 70s, in the opposite direction.

creating laws to prohibit harmful behaviour isn't some kind of crazy unsustainable new invention, it is just the basis of how societies maintain themselves. it's convenient for corporations (read: groups of resourceful people that will do anything they think they can get away with to take your money) to act like rules for them are a bad thing, but they are not, and short of implementing actual communism, they will continue to find ways to make profit. and if they don't? well should they have been making profit from harming society in the first place?