> it is in general bad for companies to become extremely large.
The core idea of your post is "moral hazard"[0], which describes a state where you are divorced from the consequence of your decision. Your idea also uses the intuition that the risk of moral hazard grows quickly with the scale of human endeavor, and reaches ~1 at a certain size. Moral hazard encompasses both the harm you do to others directly, as with missing or malicious support, and the indirect harm you do, as with externalities like pollution or depressing a local economy.
I personally think your intuition is obviously correct.
Moral hazard disconnects the social corrective circuitry present in small human groups like families or villages, but it also enables the creation and accumulation of vast wealth. This problem is known in philosophical circles as "The Problem of Dirty Hands"[1].
The core idea of your post is "moral hazard"[0], which describes a state where you are divorced from the consequence of your decision. Your idea also uses the intuition that the risk of moral hazard grows quickly with the scale of human endeavor, and reaches ~1 at a certain size. Moral hazard encompasses both the harm you do to others directly, as with missing or malicious support, and the indirect harm you do, as with externalities like pollution or depressing a local economy.
I personally think your intuition is obviously correct.
Moral hazard disconnects the social corrective circuitry present in small human groups like families or villages, but it also enables the creation and accumulation of vast wealth. This problem is known in philosophical circles as "The Problem of Dirty Hands"[1].
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
1 - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dirty-hands/