Well, I'm not the above anonymous coward, but I'll have a go anyway.
What is "significant suffering"?
Examples of "significant suffering" are reducing costs by using chemicals in manufacturing that harm or kill workers or consumers.
If I operate a small business and I take money from a poor person in return for heating oil thereby depriving him of the food he could have bought that can be said to cause suffering.
You wouldn't be depriving him of food. It was his own responsibility to best judge the opportunity costs of his actions. We as a society should maintain minimum standards for the poor and vulnerable, but unless you were coercing him into giving up food then that wasn't your responsibility as a business.
As the same small business if I choose to buy gas from $BigEvilGasCo I'm still operating within my rights.
Sure, it's within your rights. What makes $BigEvilGasCo 'evil'? There's nothing inherently wrong with it being big. If it uses its size to reduce competition (no longer a free market, if barriers to entry didn't do that already), then that's harmful to everyone who isn't a company employee or shareholder, including you. But once again, this isn't your fault.
The analogy is $BigWheatCo taking money from $SmallAfricanGrocery in return for food, thereby "impoverishing" that country.
Generally, the problem with $BigWheatCo and other large food producers is that the companies get massive subsidies for producing food in developed countries, and can sell for below cost which undercuts farming in developing and undeveloped countries. And then the product of the developed countries is bought up by their governments and dumped on the impoverished countries in the form of "aid", killing off local agriculture because it can't compete with "free".
Or $BigPharmaCo choosing to spend money on advertising rather than giving it away.
Or maybe they should not spend money on advertising and instead spend it on further R&D, or just reduce the prices of pharmaceuticals because they'll have reduced costs. Hell, they've got bloody patents monopolising their investments, so why should they need to advertise if their pharmaceuticals are beneficial?
It is disingenuous to support the right of small companies to make money while denying the right of large companies to do the same.
We (or at least I) are not against anyone making a buck, or billions at that. Making a lot of money doesn't mean that we think anyone is being screwed over by default. The one thing that irks me is that people like you scream and whine whenever you feel that the government is screwing you in the slightest, but are happy to take it in all holes from the corporations. I'm against both.
Are you for the free market or against it?
I'm for the free market, or at least as close as we can get to such a theoretical construct. In a free market, someone can end up better off than someone else, but nobody gets screwed.