Why should there be a distinction? People shouldn't magically lose rights because they ban together as a corporation instead of acting as individuals.

No, I actually misread the comment in question. I thought @dev_dull was saying that people who don't want the government to limit individual freedoms were the same people who want the government to regulate corporations. After re-reading the comment, I can see that this wasn't the message.

However, there's still the fact that @dev_dull is not distinguishing between people arguing about government restricting individual freedoms and government regulating corporations. It's not about whether people can be trusted with high interest cards, it's about whether corporations should be allowed to set any interest rate they want.

People gain some rights and protections when they ban together as a corporation. It is not unreasonable to expect them to give up others in exchange for the ones they gain.

I don't think that people should gain rights when they ban together into a corporation. So perhaps some adjustment is necessary.

In some cases, this adjustment would necessitate increasing the rights of individuals.