Well, we either believe government has a function, or we don't.
None of those examples, milk, prescription drugs, cars, can be taken out of the context of their broader manufacturing and supply cycle. You could have ten thousand independent grocery stores all desiring to set prices for milk independently, and it doesn't mean a damn if there is a single dairy corporation that collects from factory farms and distributes milk at fixed wholesale prices, (and also controls the supply of other food goods such that, they can dictate retail prices, or shut an independent retailer out of the business completely).
This is not the case anywhere for milk, of course. But I use it as extreme example - because it HAS been the actual case for petroleum, with Standard oil, 100 years ago. And Standard may have been broken up into smaller companies, but some of those have re-combined, and in some regions, they command these kinds of influential powers on the marketplace.
Anyplace along the supply-chain of ANY feedstock material in ANY industry, if there is a provider that controls that kind of market dominance, there is the opportunity for these kinds of abuses.
There is also THIS to consider:
The corporate charter, is a legal "permission slip" given to companies, to operate their business, without the tax and legal liabilities that individual human beings have. The corporate charter is something that a Government GIVES to the corporation. (certainly, there are filing fees, etc.) The government plays a role in every corporation from day one. No business can exist as a corporation without "Government interference".
For proponents of "less government interference", (and "strict constitutional constructionalists, eh?) I'd suggest we revoke and drop corporate charters FIRST, and expose corporations to the same legal and tax environment that the rest of us are exposed to, before we talk about all the "horrible intrusive regulations" we impose on them. (and by "we", I mean, voters, consumers, taxpayers, "we the people", ie. the government).
Many would consider this to be an extreme ideological position, and impractical. And they'd be right.
Why does the government even play a role in this? Because the alternative is impractical and unworkable. The free-market libertarian paradise? Where the government doesn't get involved or do anything? Go see how that's working out, in places like, Somalia, Zimbabwe, (etc.)
