The difference is that corporations have (mostly) voluntary membership but unelected leadership, whereas nations have (mostly) involuntary membership and elected leadership. So it still stands that it should not be the expected state of affairs that corporations are seen as stewards of the common good, rather than the government. It really ought to be the other way around, and the fact that it isn't is sign of a problem.

I don't remember who said it, but there is a quote along the lines of: "People should look to the private sector for growth, and to the government for justice. Increasingly, they look to the government for growth and to the private sector for justice."

Edit: Found proper quote and source thanks to mbrock's pointing out where I likely heard it last.

The quote is:

"We have come to rely upon capitalism for justice and the government for economic stimulation, precisely the opposite of what reason would suggest." - Donald Kaul

And it comes from here: http://articles.philly.com/1990-10-17/news/25891604_1_budget... (Timothy Taylor did quote Kaul in the podcast mentioned in the comment below)

Timothy Taylor talked about that idea as guest on the 1 February episode of EconTalk with Russ Roberts.

> Corporations aren't fundamentally different from the government.

Yes, and that is the problem. Both are enormous institutions with tremendous wealth, resources, and power over individuals. A democracy is supposed to check this kind of power, but instead we're relying on it, only from a different source. The corporations' interests are currently aligned with the people's only by good fortune. When they're not, who will check them? Who will check the government?

Corporate interests are not a sustainable, effective, or remotely wise defense of liberty. The fact that Cook and Zuckerberg are doing our fighting for us is evidence that the correct methods are not functioning properly.

Well... yes, they are groups of people, but governments are rather different. Governments include everyone and act on their behalf. They are also responsible for creating and enforcing law. The distinction is valid.

> Governments include everyone and act on their behalf. They are also responsible for creating and enforcing law.

It's more accurate to think of governments as a special case of corporations.

Governments don't always "include everyone", and as we've seen, they definitely don't necessarily act on their constituents' behalf.

In certain contexts, corporations have also been responsible for creating and enforcing law, even though that's not the context we are used to today in the US.

It's more accurate to think of corporations as a special case of governments, what with corporations being a recent legal structure created by governments.