In theory yes, but it takes a government with "balls" to take this kind of stance. Big companies owners and leaders are from the same schools, eat at the same table, are friends with the politician ruling class. One government might take action against a foreign company because it is foreign, yet allows the same behavior from a domestic company. Ultimately the people need to cut some heads to remember them what is the commoner interest. (ps: the last sentence is mostly a joke, based on France history)

> One government might take action against a foreign company because it is foreign, yet allows the same behavior from a domestic company

Yup, I think we have seen that with Monsanto. US courts mostly got the kid gloves out when dealing with their antics. Cue Monsanto gets acquired by Bayer, next thing you know it's convictions left and right.

The likely decade of court losses was clearly inbound, it's why Monsanto was sold off. There was going to be no upside to the stock in that atmosphere, so a nicely priced sale was the optimal out. The court losses you're referring to were well set before the sale. The roundup trial for example was filed a year prior to the sale. The lawyers for Monsanto and Bayer very likely knew how bad it was, they had a better view than anybody else.

Bayer knew exactly what it was buying: they're going to trade a mere year or two of Monsanto profit (maximum), across a decade, to pay for the overall legal hit. In exchange they get to buy a fortress of intellectual property and one of the globe's dominant AG chem / AG biotech businesses (on a planet that will add ~3 billion more people to feed in the coming decades).

What's worse: big company owners and big financiers are from the same schools, etc. It's not unheard of for a nation that's threatened an overreaching company with sanctions or nationalization to find itself facing a coup, or shut out of an advantageous (read: actually workable) stake in the world monetary establishment. In fact, that's basically the modern history of the southern hemisphere.

You don't get to play unless the global oligarchs can skim off what they want, even if it breaks your economy (all the better! Who doesn't love an entire population in thrall to your whims?). The American government is currently part of that oligarchy, but see what happens if Bernie Sanders is elected.

Well, American oligarchs can spend a lot of money and effort to prevent someone like Bernie Sanders from getting elected president

>Forgive me for my naive thinking. But as long as country have a military power, isn’t that the ultimate deciding factor?

It's not naive, it's the way life works even though we don't like to admit it. They got the bigger guns. They're in charge. Full stop.

A Constitution and laws just tells us the conditions under which they will use their guns. Even then, they can and will use them on other occasions if they feel the situation warrants.

The idea that companies or citizens are more powerful than governments is fanciful in the extreme. When companies get militaries that can go toe to toe with the militaries of the various governments of the world, then I'll buy it.

The OP mentioned companies play a kingmaker role by owning the platforms on which elections are won and lost. The implication is that they can directly and disproportionately influence the government, such that the government is their tool and not the people’s tool, as in a bonafide democracy.

The question isn’t whether the government or corporations have more power, it’s whether corporations or the people control the government and in which proportions.

> The idea that companies or citizens are more powerful than governments is fanciful in the extreme.

I’m certain King George would have agreed with you in 1775.

The people in the USA specifically are better armed and outnumber the US military many times over. This was by design.

You could make an argument about nukes or tanks or drones - but you know what has to stand on street corners to enforce curfews, stop assembly, or protect supply chains? Soldiers.

The US government as an entity is weaker than the people it sees over - for now. Many people are intent to change that.

Here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22025893 - there is an illustration of different points of view in the same - but modified - texts. Perhaps it partially explains difference in opinions on seemingly the same facts.

I think people are underestimating how much of an asymmetric advantage a tech giant like google has over opponents — so far it is in good hands, but I would argue that, if the company were taken over by a bad actor, they would have almost infinite data to blackmail any opponent that isn’t a saint with the most personal details of their life or monitor their activities.

>military power, isn’t that the ultimate deciding factor?

No, physical force is only one form of power. Knowledge/information and wealth are other forms of power that can be a far more practical (and scalable) means for achieving different ends.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powershift_(book)

The problem is big companies impose so much power over governments, which often depend on them for that military power and technological superiority that those companies can influence the countries to do what they want. Think about how many of our wars were based on oil. Think about how our government has threatened to put tariffs on France for trying to properly tax tech companies.

Countries have dropped rules on tech companies, and tech companies have retaliated to the point that those countries relented and begged the companies to come back.

No, tech companies aren't going to start driving tanks across enemy companies' lawns, but they don't have to. They're so powerful they can use countries' militaries as their pawns.