And where does all that money come from? Unless they're a cartel or government, it's coming from voluntary consumers. The people can cut them off of their power any time they feel the need to organize a strike or boycott.
Government on the other hand, makes this harder by passing laws and regulations that are intended or told to be protecting the workers and consumers, but really just prevent the creation of small businesses that can compete and offer an alternative to those corporations and whatever evil thing they might be doing. This is called crony capitalism, and it's almost always the problem when people point out a valid issue that arises in a free market.
Government is the problem. Government is the reason this immoral market fuckery is legitimized, and unlike a business, if you try to boycott a government, you just get arrested for tax evasion. The threat of not being able to make a profit is 1000x more powerful than simply trusting that democracy, which at its best is mob rule, to fix everything at all times.
The money comes from people who must survive. I would like to see you boycott food producers or electricity providers. What you are advocating for is undemocratic: the wealthy have more influence and can (and will) use influence to get more wealth and influence. A democracy offers more (not perfect obviously) protection against the elite dominating everyone else.
Before you claim that my examples of food producers or utilities are only monopolies because of government, let me explain how monopolies form in free markets. It is known that corporations don't like the threat of less profits that is represented by competitors. The incumbent is able to operate at a loss for longer than the up-and-coming competitor can, and so they are able to use immoral market fuckery to remain on top. Thus a large company acts to deliberatly eliminate competition.
Please, tell me how governments are responsible for the immoral fuckery that is melamine in food, aloe lotions without any trace of aloe, cheese bulked out with cellulose, or emissions lies. These companies decided that quality and ethics weren't worth the cost, that profits were more important than moral behaviour. Some regulations are a necessary market restriction; companies routinely demonstrate that they value profit more than ethics and consumer health.
The money comes from people who must survive. I would like to see you boycott food producers or electricity providers. What you are advocating for is undemocratic: the wealthy have more influence and can (and will) use influence to get more wealth and influence. A democracy offers more (not perfect obviously) protection against the elite dominating everyone else.
Boycotting certain food producers, and distributors, isn't a death sentence. Ever gone to a supermarket? The majority of the various products there, you don't buy, and haven't bought in your life. If there's a boycott, it's up to the people who do buy that product to simply buy something else, or even the same thing from a different brand, if they disagree with it. That brand's competitors have the opportunity to make money off the boycotters by not doing the same thing as the other company.
It's a lot harder to do this when the government sets regulations that prevent small, start-up businesses from taking advantage of this and catering to the boycotters. Wal-Mart does not get destroyed by a minimum wage increase, but potential local competitors do. Kraft is just fine with the FDA regulations (that should be preventing them from selling that disgusting rubber to people), but if you wanted to start a business and sell actual cheese, good luck staying in business while you wait for the FDA to approve you.
Before you claim that my examples of food producers or utilities are only monopolies because of government, let me explain how monopolies form in free markets. It is known that corporations don't like the threat of less profits that is represented by competitors. The incumbent is able to operate at a loss for longer than the up-and-coming competitor can, and so they are able to use immoral market fuckery to remain on top. Thus a large company acts to deliberatly eliminate competition.
And how exactly are they deliberately eliminating competition? Without a government to manipulate the market in your favor, intentionally (through lobbying) or otherwise, you would have to form a cartel. There is no immoral market fuckery without a government or a cartel involved.
Please, tell me how governments are responsible for the immoral fuckery that is melamine in food, aloe lotions without any trace of aloe, cheese bulked out with cellulose, or emissions lies. These companies decided that quality and ethics weren't worth the cost, that profits were more important than moral behaviour. Some regulations are a necessary market restriction; companies routinely demonstrate that they value profit more than ethics and consumer health.
That's because consumers don't care enough either, and the ones that do will turn to politicians to save them, instead of taking action in the market themselves. If you don't want to buy food with poison in it, don't buy it, buy something else. If you don't want others to buy it, start convincing others not to buy it, which is a million times easier now thanks to the internet. Regulation is necessary, but it doesn't have to come from legislation, it can come from common sense and reason, which comes with a whole hell of a lot less unintended consequences, and is much less immoral.
And if the corporation in question is actually violating the NAP (fraud is coercion, so selling rubber and calling it cheese for example, would be considered a criminal act), then private courts can absolutely take care of that. Just like oil companies, which are guilty of mass vandalism, would not survive without a government to protect them. According to legislative law, enacted by a democratic government, they aren't doing a damn thing wrong. The NAP on the other hand, forbids any form of coercion except as a form of self defense, so if someone is destroying the environment, and with it, everyone's property, then they are violating the NAP, and it's justified to use force to stop them.
Governments are (in theory) under democratic control. Businesses let those with more money buy more votes (shareholders).