I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.
Why do you think this is unlikely? People take sides and have points of view. People do not operate is this neutral manner and only with their customers best interest.
But it's not in their customer's best interest that they're doing that. They're acting in their own (and possibly their shareholder's) best interest. More customers means more money. More money is good for the company. Siding with the group of people that are abusing their customers will not get them more customers. It might (read: definitely will) even lose them some (read: most, if not all) of
their customers, to groups that aren't OK with abusing their customers.
In text-book this may be written. The world is not that simplistic. People and companies do many ranges of actions for many reasons that sometime fit in your mold and many times do not. I actually find more money can many times be quite bad for a company, they lose their culture, character, what they stood for in the market place. History is litter with examples. Perfect example in modern times, Google and Apple. Example from history, British East Indian Company, Llyods of London, Standard Oil, etc..
You may need to revise your history. I'm not familiar with the story of Lloyds of London, but I do know that the British East India company was a Crown Charter. In other words, a royally granted monopoly. Yeah, pretty much exactly what I'm advocating removing.
Standard Oil reduced oil prices drastically. They had, at their peak, only about 88% of the market share.
Google and Apple, I don't see doing anything I would remotely complain about - especially since they're pretty much in direct competition at this point.
The one thing both capitalists and communists agree on is that you can always count on a capitalist to be a greedy fucker. Communists view this as a bad thing, to be stomped out. AnCaps see this as a good thing, to be harnessed.
By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
Now, he was talking about not outsourcing, here, but the key part of the quote is this:
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
Even 230 years ago, we knew that people acting in their own interest, as long as they don't act specifically against others' interest, will result in a more prosperous society.
Company References - These are all examples of companies that started out small and as they got bigger (more money), they became more non-competitive and monopolistic. This came from the statement you made the more money for a company is a basically always a good thing. I was refuting this claim.
Now Google and Apple - I don't have time to recount their history but l'll leave it here, both had very idealistic founders that came into the business to compete with the big boys and in Google case "Don't be evil". Well Apple is exactly what they didn't want to become, the 800-pound gorilla that is trying to limit choice when they started as the computer "choice" from IBM and Microsoft. Google, you don't even know what they are collecting and who they share it with and they defend it with a paranoid zeal if you ask any questions. Nuff said.
Adam Smith - If you going to quote Wealth of Nations, I suggest you read his first book "Theory of Moral Sentiment" first.
