most corporations today are global multinationals operating in all countries, and they love to make use of that by doing in the non-free countries all the evil things that they can't (as easily) do in the free countries.
First of all, America is still reasonably free. Second, the governments of those non-free countries, which may condone (and encourage) those unspecified "evil things", are even less likely to provide citizens with decent Internet access, than is Facebook.
You claim this is the best way for a corporation to get rich, but you offer no evidence to support that claim.
In a free country, there is simply no other way to get rich. That's my proof... The less free the country (down from "free" to "reasonably free"), the worse it is as corruption and crony capitalism open up opportunities for corporations to get rich in other ways.
A big news one recently was when Oracle decided the best way to riches was to take the MONEY for providing a service to the taxpayers of Portland without actually providing the service, and giving just a token piece of junk instead.
That's a rather one-sided way of describing it, but is this your argument for trusting the State government, which hired Oracle in the first place? Or for the Federal government, which made such a contract (creation of "health exchange") necessary in the first place?
But whatever the specifics of this case, I was talking about corporations getting rich by pleasing people — people, spending their own monies, rather than government officials spending those of their constituents.
The more money is spent by the government, the less free the citizens — and the more opportunities arise for unscrupulous corporations to profit unjustly. You can win a billion-dollar contract by giving a million to the official in charge of millions' of people taxes. But you can't do that selling to people directly — for that you have to actually deliver something decent, or fool people. Fortunately, fooling all the people all the time is notoriously difficult...
That they will never end up doing something that makes less money but is more evil simply because made a bad decision
Not at all. I consider neither corporate CEOs nor government bureaucrats to be omniscient. But you seem to think, only the CEOs are fallible...
PG&E was providing electricity [...] toxic waste properly and dumping it in people's drinking water instead.
Once again your example involves a corporation profiting from a special arrangement with the government... Don't you see the trend yet?
Facebook is the perfect example here - their product is private information for targetted advertising, the users aren't the customers
So long as nobody is forced to sign up, you argument is without merit.
It's easy to point the finger solely at government for those but it's also false, if the government didn't exist the companies would do the SAME things
For someone pointing out logical fallacies (real or otherwise) in other people's arguments, you are strangely susceptible to the "excluded middle". How about the government existed, but limited itself to those things enumerated in our Constitution as government's domain:
- Law (criminal, tort, contractual) enforcement;
- Defense from any would-be foreign invaders