You can get a full topic on one page for searching:
I think we could do much more effective policing of companies without people getting better or more rational, if we just wanted to and most people agreed on that goal. Like if 90% of people found my essay persuasive and agreed about most of the examples I’ve gathered over the years, then I think the existing justice system is capable of doing more. If it was a priority, they could catch more cases and have more serious consequences when companies are caught.
I think the main blocker right now is political opposition not rationality or skill. One reason for the opposition is pro-company biases from Republicans and libertarians, some of which I think are connected with Milton Friedman. A second reason for the opposition is that a lot of anti-company type people, who want to reign in companies, go too far in various ways, wanting policing and other policies which are not permitted by classical liberalism, libertarianism and minarchy. And they do things like use anti-trust law to try to police companies, which offends libertarians who think anti-trust is bad on principle.
One of my other relevant thoughts is that policing companies better (preventing them from aggressing) is a higher priority than shrinking government and lowering taxes. I think most (non-anarachist) libertarian types prioritize the other way and I think they’re making a mistake and not taking aggression by companies seriously enough as an important, widespread problem which it its the government’s job to stop. (Anarchists should care about defense too but there are various complications with them that I’m not going to discuss now.)