really? So there have never been any big-business enterprise that just wanted to make money? they all wanted to take over the world and commit genocide and starve the people of it’s own country, and invade and murder neighboring countries?” …’cause there have been many, many governments to do so.

In fact, though, Ryan, I would agree that a judicial system needs to be in place to prevent force, fraud and/or coercion. I have to concede that, because I am not an anarchist.

I do agree that a private monopoly is ALWAYS better than a government monopoly by it’s very nature. It’s a value-producing entity, a wealth-creating machine. A government monopoly is more like a social program than a grand-scale value-for-value exchange. A government that is involved in our economy has over-stepped it’s boundaries. It’s job is, objectively, to make sure everbody plays fair.

I’m not some crazy left wing anti-corporate type, either. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to buy in to this “corporations always do things better” zealotry that’s coming into vogue as of late.

Corporations are nothing more than just another hierarchical structure of organizing people to attain a goal. Depending on your goal, various different organizational types have strengths and weaknesses. There is nothing inherently fair, natural, or magical about corporations.

You of all people, Ryan – an intelligent guy who has expounded endlessly on the need for clearheaded, objective thought, should know better than to make absolute assertions that X is ALWAYS better than Y. You assert governments are ALWAYS backed primarily by the threat of force, and imply that could NEVER be the case by an organization that follows the corporate model. If you can’t find the counterexamples, you might want to consider the possibility your biases are becoming an issue.

Every virtue listed here in this thread of corporations only exists because their power is limited by governments.

I’m not even in disagreement with you that in *most* cases, a private monopoly is better than a government one, so there’s not much point arguing after this point. I just found such an absolutist statement by you surprising.

http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/laar/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart_Laar

I think the types who still advocate socialism and central planning are like those washed up high school football players who still talk about the glory days and how they could have made the State finals. The dream is over and they can’t let go.

I read somewhere a while back that some time after Estonia left the USSR, their newly elected President enacted a huge series of classical liberal reforms, because he was so inspired by Milton Friedman’s documentary series Free To Choose.

Today, Estonia is rapidly becoming a powerhouse within Europe and is arguably one of the most advanced countries in the former Eastern Bloc. How often do you hear this reported?

Are you sure about that? Look at the history of secessions. How many happened peacefully? And how many of those weren’t at least at the brink of violence? Yes, governments (democracies) exist at the request of citizens, but at their very core, they derive their power from force and the threat of violence. That is EXACTLY why people band together and grant them that power, because it’s persuasive.

Of course monopolies are bad–but private ones are NATURAL and they die natural deaths. Government monopolies die only in tandem with the fall of the government itself. Or by “official decree” Ask yourself, would it be easier to start your own company that defeats FedEx or convince ALL of America to pass a constitutional amendment that ends the Post Office.