Swingman wrote in
:

Corporations generally have a right to do business as they see fit ...
or in a manner, no matter how stupid or ill advised, that they can get
away.

The customer only has a right to take their business elsewhere, so
far.

The problem, as you are experiencing, starts soon after you get
government involvement.

Works briefly in your favor, then you idiots allow your elected
representatives to sell you out and you eventually get the phenomenon
know as "regulatory capture" ... always to the detriment of the
consumer.

The banking and investment industry are perfect examples, as well as
cable and internet providers.

This is kind of a naive view. It fails in two ways, one because
it ignores the reality of monopolies and collusion (so that it's
not always possible to "take one's business elsewhere"); and the
other because a business's profit motive generally doesn't align
with the public's desire for a clean and safe environment.

In an ideal world, regulation would exist only in so far as is
necessary to provide "an even playing field", where competing
businesses all had the same safety and enviromental standards
(so none had an advantage), and all truely did compete (so the
customer had a fair choice). In practice, governments are not
very good at identifying those boundries, and inertia tends to
keep regulations in place long after the need for them has
passed (by the same token, inertia tends to prevent regulation
being put in place until well after the need first appears -
something of a closing the barn door after the horse has left
effect).

Anyone interested in the subject would be well advised to
study the history of railroad regulation (since that was the
first industry regulated) from the creation of the ICC to
the Staggers act of 1980 that deregulated it (about 30 years
after the need for regulation had ended).

John