This is a position I can agree with in many ways. It would require government over-site, however, as corporation leaders are unlikely to attribute their own success to income inequality or class conflict; and the increasing monopolization of both media and marketplace prevent most individuals from being aware of these events or able to respond effectively.

The privatization of the prison system is an example of where these apply. Privatized prisons are expanding because they are less costly than federal prisons. Their main reason for being less costly, however, is reduced wages, benefits, and training. There’s also an inherent conflict of interests between for-profit prisons and the public good, as prison unions frequently lobby (in their interest) for increases in sentencing.(I’m thinking of the criminalization of nonviolent drug offenders in California, for example, where the prison officers’ union is one of the loudest voices for mandatory sentencing.)

The neoconservative argument emphasizes personal freedom, property ownership, and inequality; saying that regulation is harmful to personal incentive, and unfair to those who have already achieved wealth and power. Despite the frequent indulgence in corporate welfare (write-offs, stock bonuses to circumvent income taxes, tax-breaks for expansion, compensation for hiring low-income workers, etc) and market regulation (product loyalty laws, patent laws, price setting, international trade agreements, etc) which protect their interest, they still claim that regulation = fascism because, in reality, they don’t care what you think.