I think the reason some political groups distrust corporations is because such corporations count as a different kind of intelligence.
Some of these reasons are also similar to the distrust of AI.
@jmw150 I think this is an interesting take; however, I have a slight addition to it. I distrust corporations because their objective function is out of balance with the rest of reality: i.e. the maximization of profit at all cost. This is their fiduciary responsibility to their stake holders, and any deviation of that leaves them liable to legal action. This is very similar to the idea of creating an AI to make paperclips which can ultimately lead to the universe being made entirely of paperclips, if left unchecked.
E.g. if Pepsi wants to reduce the amount of sugar in the drinks, but Coke doesn't do the same, Pepsi will lose market share. Therefore, any action that these companies could/should take to help reduce obesity (particularly in the US) is nullified by the potential reduction of their market-share.
Before you comment "but muh freedom to consume what I want" you should consider the work on "rational addiction" which was performed on people addicted to sugar. While it states that addiction is a subset of rational behavior when considering the warped reward function of addicts, the fact is this warped reward function is actively harming consumers, and is perpetuated by the corporations providing the addictive substance.
At this point, only the government can control these entities, which leads to a form of fascistic capitalism/cronyism, with little to no regard for the workers/consumers welfare.
Additionally, corporations are designed to reduce the risk that any individual within the corporation feels as a result of mistakes/malpractice, but they still have similar legal rights as individuals. This makes no sense: there should be tradeoffs for the advantages you receive by incorporating. This would allow smaller, unincorporated business owners to try to compete against long-standing incumbents without as much of a significant overhead requirement, despite the relatively higher personal risk.
Long story short, I like capitalism, but we've allowed it to move from serving the consumer to controlling the consumer, which is leading to some negative outcomes that I think need to be addressed. I think the primary way to address it, is through adjusting the incentive structures that keep corporations operating solely in a profit driven way.
@johnabs Hmm. I meant to say large groups of people think in a very different way in aggregate than individuals.
People also distrust large groups with complex goals, like governments, and other non-business organizations as they get bigger.
@jmw150 I think I agree with the general statement, but I'm not sure the distrust *necessarily* comes from an increase in complexity of the operation of large entities, or the increasing ability of these large entities to exert influence on individuals. While I think complexity (especially when combined with furtive motives) breeds some level of distrust, I don't think most people care so long as their lives aren't (at risk of) being impinged upon by these entities.
(examples ahead)
A few good examples from the U.S. are Monsanto's impact on farmers, and the Supreme Court's "qualified immunity" doctrine. Monsanto has been suing small farmers for years (and never losing) over "GMO crop contamination" which occurs if their plants somehow (air, rain, insects, etc.) manage to pollinate yours. At that point, if >1% of the farmer's crops contain the "patented gene" then they get their pants sued off for patent infringement, despite a clear lack of intent.
As for qualified immunity, this is used to give nearly absolute immunity to governmental agents who violate the rights of individuals that haven't been "clearly established". Unfortunately, this means lower courts will simply claim qualified immunity on behalf of "their team", and absolve these various entities (including police officers, federal agents, etc.) from all wrongdoing and consequences, if even an iota of the case is different from that of preceding rulings. Worse yet is that they have no obligation to make a new ruling, which often means appeals and escalation, often up to the Supreme Court. This costs increasing amounts of money, much of which is never seen by the plaintiffs, but is only used to add to the "list of things we can't do" rather than the clear constitutional limitation of "enumerated powers".
In conclusion, I think complexity may be a contributing factor, but I think potential influence/restriction of freedom is more so a contributor in most cases. (Sorry these always end up so long, but I want to make sure I'm addressing your points clearly and providing sufficient evidence to support my own positions, and hopefully more for you to chew on 😁 )
