It's only voluntary if they don't get too large. See: company stores. Or basically any megacorp in cyberpunk genre.

Also it can appear voluntary... "Sure you can pay 2x the cost for your insurance or you can get insurance, food, accommodation conveniently provided by Amazon who is also your employer for a good discount"

Some other effects of "voluntary interaction":

"Concealment at scale is the secret to Amazon’s success. Customers enjoy a seamless one-stop shop experience from the comfort of their homes. Out of sight is a ruthless game of regulatory arbitrage, as Amazon installs itself in low-tax jurisdictions and exploits legal loopholes around the world. Even further away from the customer lies Amazon’s environmental impact, scorching frontline communities in the global south while executives in Seattle roll out their latest greenwashed PR campaign."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/01/amazon...

To be fair, Amazon has probably the worst corporate reputation among public-facing companies, up with Walmart when it comes to labor issues. So I find it hard to believe that anyone is being convinced that Amazon is a net positive here.

And at a certain point it's consumerism that's driving all of this. I don't know if it's fair to blame Amazon for this any more than it is to blame McDonalds for obesity. We live in a society where people are free to make their own choices, and as long as these "hidden costs" aren't well regulated, a lot of people will take a cheeseburger at the cost of a few extra pounds, and some 2-day shipped plastic junk at the expense of some poor over-worked employee's vacation.

Meanwhile, these consumers are putting additional strain on the healthcare system, and encouraging companies like Amazon to get away with all of its labor abuses.

> To be fair, Amazon has probably the worst corporate reputation among public-facing companies, up with Walmart when it comes to labor issues.

The US healthcare system, oil, gas and coal companies, weapons manufacturers, factory farms, fast fashion sellers, soft drink and dessert companies?

I mean, Amazon and MS are in ESG investing indexes, so they must be doing okay. Those indexes won't even allow nuclear power in.

I think my phrasing was poor. I meant specifically about labor issues, not the general impact on society/the world. Everyone in the country jokes about how Amazon employees have to run, skip bathroom breaks, etc. to meet warehouse quotas. Whether this is entirely true anymore, I don't know, but that's the reputation.

Voluntary interaction plays a necessary but insufficient role in the existence of corporations of this size.

The crux of the argument really focuses on that "for profit" bit, and that's really a conundrum in corporate governance. The problem isn't at all "corporations", which are just assemblies of humans for a common purpose, but is the specific, legally-arguable requirement that their ultimate purpose is maximizing profit. The contrasting idea is the "public benefit corporation", where you're (presumably? IANAL) legally obligated to funnel your profits back into doing the job of the business better).

From a legal/ideological standpoint, this might be a powerful soft-pivot that would solve a lot of problems.

There's a famous line from Walt Disney, during Disney's golden age, where he said "we don't make movies so we can make money - we make money, so we can make movies". That really hits at the heart of it.

The interesting thing is that, to a large degree, most of the meaningful corporations that improve the world - despite nominally being for-profit companies, generally tend to operate halfways into public-benefit territory. Partly because the benefit provided by them is essentially what the owners are "buying for themselves". To put it in perspective - if you're an extravagantly wealthy patron who wants to - themselves - have animated films to watch, you can't just hire some off-the-shelf people to do it, because they don't exist unless an industry to train them, exists. There's not really a "more narrowly selfish" way to do it - you're best served by building some outfit like Disney to build a brain trust of people to produce what you want.

Similarly with Amazon; sure, an extravagantly wealthy individual could probably accomplish the shipping part of it with personal couriers, but the information-gathering part of it where all the products-available-to-buy are laid in front of you as choices would be nearly impossible to match. Like, you could try to match it with some awful, personal, potemkin setup. But by the time you put in all of that effort ... I mean, you're basically already building what could be a business that could serve others, so you may as well.

How do you volunteer not to interact with a monopoly?

Not saying Amazon IS a monopoly. But a "nation corporation" would effectively be company scrip on a much larger scale I suspect

It doesn't have deep, grounding values.