In theory, at least, the reconciliation is to side with the little guy. When there's a massive imbalance of power, there's an idea that you will be more restrictive of the powerful side.
The theory is that this is in the public's best interests.
So, in theory, if you have two giant companies that control 95% of the distribution of widgets, you might decide that they cannot merge into one entity. But if widgets are made by a bunch of tiny independents and sold to those two distributors, you might allow the independents to form a co-operative association.
In practice, lawyers and lobbyists will say and do anything to get an advantage for their clients. But that's the theory, and that's why it's generally easier to form a union than it is to form a cartel.
Is there some arbitrary pre-specified list/heirarchy of little guys that must be taken as a first principle, or is there an underlying principle determining who is the little guy?
This is an interesting question, which is usually resolved (though sometimes it may take a while, by observation). The big guy is the party that has the resources and ability to limit the options of the other party (henceforth the little guy) or to benefit from the little guy's limited choices. Of course, you could say that a worker could "exploit" the employer's limited choice in raising the wage vs. relocating, which might be more expensive. But this choice (losing $8m vs., $10m) is not as restrictive as a choice between working for wages that just barely provide subsistence vs. trying to relocate with only the clothes on your back and possibly no prospects elsewhere.
Me, personally, I use my judgment. Others go by whomever has the cleverest lawyers or the most well-paid lobbyists.
Or you can cop out and say that since there is no perfect way to write a law relating to this, there should be no law. Which is effectively the law of the jungle. Some people prefer that.
"I use my judgement" is the cop out. Crazygringo asked what the underlying principle is to provide justification for an otherwise arbitrary-sounding rule. The underlying principle you provide isn't actually an underlying principle at all - it's just pushing the arbitrary-sounding rule one level up.
You might as well just say "I use my judgement" as a (non-)answer to his original question.
Your suggestion that people asking for a (moral/political) philosophical justification of a law is a "cop-out" is simply anti-intellectual. You might not carefully think through your views, but some of us (i.e. crazygringo) at least try to. I know the idea is a little threatening (you run the risk of discovering your views are wrong, omfg!) and suggests possible tribal disloyalty, but please recognize that crazygringo basically agrees with you [1] and is just trying to understand intellectually why.
[1] I'm interpreting this from the first and last lines of his post.
I do carefully think through a lot of things, I just don't end up with the conclusion that companies should be free to form cartels while passing "right to work" laws that hobble unions.
I'm ok with you disagreeing with me and/or insulting me for not playing the society game by your rules.
I have no idea why you are arguing against a conclusion that neither crazygringo nor I expressed. I have no idea why you think we disagreed with you - crazygringo explicitly agreed with you and I never expressed an opinion.
I've discovered that I learn far more when I treat questions I have no answer for as an opportunity to learn than when I treat it as an insult and a straw man argument.
(More pragmatically, try to estimate who really has the power in a situation; who has other options? Who is dependant on whom? Remember that a company is not a person and does not have physical or emotional needs.)
The theory is that this is in the public's best interests.
So, in theory, if you have two giant companies that control 95% of the distribution of widgets, you might decide that they cannot merge into one entity. But if widgets are made by a bunch of tiny independents and sold to those two distributors, you might allow the independents to form a co-operative association.
In practice, lawyers and lobbyists will say and do anything to get an advantage for their clients. But that's the theory, and that's why it's generally easier to form a union than it is to form a cartel.