It's interesting that you should observe that corporations arose as a response to government. You may be right, but not for the rose-colored reasons you think.

America's Founders were deeply suspicious of concentrations of power in a few hands, because, as you say, they saw that the result was always the subjugation of the less powerful. Every aspect of the system they designed is intended to resist concentration of power, and to spread it as broadly as possible and to put as much power as possible in the hands of individuals.

They did a great job addressing the nature of power as it existed in their world. Though it's taken two centuries, their efforts ultimately led to the virtual elmination of monarchy as a form of government throughout the world. They won.

But human nature doesn't change just because we have laws and a Constitution. People have always lusted for power, and they always will. It'd be foolish to rest on our laurels and assume that we've contained the beast of powerlust forever and ever. Those who hunger for power over others will, when one avenue to power is blocked, find another.

In the days of our Founders, power led to wealth. The powerhungry realized that it would work just as well to turn the equation around: Wealth leads to power.

The economic rationale of the corporation is the greater efficiency of concentration of assets and facilities and people under one organization; the evasion of risk through the "limited-liability" premise of a corporation1; and the opportunity for control through hierarchichal command-and-control structure.

Those very same properties make a corporation a perfect instrument for exercizing power.

It's hardly an accident, nor a conspiracy, that laws addressing monopolistic and anti-competitive practices (in plain English, economic bullying) had to be passed shortly after the corporate form became popular in the late 19th century. In that first era, monopolists and oligarchs focused on killing off the competition. As their positions became more secure, they moved on to using their economic power to control marketplaces and the behavior of consumers, and on buying government power; and over time the nature of economic regulation has evolved into consumer protection laws. The full spectrum of evolved economic regulation addresses such problems as false advertising and fraud, investment fraud targeted at the economically unsophisticated, predatory lending practices, health inspection of food processors and later regulation of pharmaceutical safety, workplace health and safety...well, I could go on forever, because the list of economic regulations is exactly as complex as our economy has become. Economic regulation addresses the threat of economic power under the same rationale as our Constitution addresses governmental power: To limit the power of others to control our lives.

Once upon a time, gb, power created wealth, but now wealth creates power. No matter its nature, we must always oppose concentration of power in the hands of the few if we're to have any hope of maintaining our freedom.


1. In a sense, a corporation is a financial instrument. The limitation on liability is intended to loosen the purse strings of investors by eliminating any downside beyond losing the investment. It's a well-intentioned idea as originally envisisioned, but it's had the unfortunate side-effect of too-often shielding corporate executives from the consequences of their misdeeds. To hold the Ford Corporation responsible for those killed by exploding Pintos is meaningless--somebody, some person made the decisions that led to those deaths. But instead, the "corporate entity" took the fall and paid a fine. Can you honestly say that that was right?