Very interesting comment.

The statement was written with the lens of very different goals (corporations maximize profit within the context of selling goods and services where governments - usually, serve the people sufficiently to maintain control & power over its people by being “great leaders”).

Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do. Corporations also rarely have militaries nor are the final backstop for when disagreements occur.

Your example is interesting because it compares probably the most government like corporation to ever exist (the Dutch East India Company) and the most “nurfed” head of state by most metrics to ever exist (I.e. the least powerful relative to power of the nation - the American President, while being the head of the largest economically and most powerful country, role by role is quite restricted and limited in scope and control by design of the founding fathers).

> Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do.

And yet in the U.S., your health care and pension is often tied to your employment at a corporation. For some people, for example those on work visa, having employment in a particular corporation is tied to living in the same country.

Vice versa, a democratic government has less control over your life than you might think.

And if we look at things like free speech - I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult.

> I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult.

What do you mean by this?

Google is a smoking pile of dumpster fires filled with turds.

Should I now expect Google agents to come to my house and disappear my family and I?

I come from a former communist country. Non-existence of free speech didn't always mean that somebody will disappear you. It might also have meant that you lose your cushy job and get a less cushy job. Which is not really all that different from what can happen if you openly criticize the CEO of your corporation, even internally.

The British East India company was a government actor. It’s silly to consider them otherwise simply because it was technically a “joint-stock company.” It was part of the government. Wikipedia even notes:

> Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies"

> It was part of the government.

It was not. It did not answer to Parliament, only to its shareholders. It has the best of both worlds though, because many powerful MPs were shareholders. So they got govt protection without govt oversight.

You're definitely focusing on the wrong bit.

There are two important differences:

1) Head of Executive branch is limited by law (constitution, etc). CEO is not limited

2) The Raison d'être of government, at least de iure, is to do good for its citizens, while the raison d'être of corporation is to make money.

That makes them very different - not a lot of people would object to removal of nonproductive employees or customers, but many would (I hope!) object removal (through whatever means) of "nonproductive" citizens.

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify their own beliefs.

If it has the power to jail and kill, that'll make it much more like a government than you like to admit.

so therefore any corporation that has the power to jail and kill is no longer a corporation and cannot pollute the distinction? paradoxical.

US slave trading firms were government agencies folks.

I'm sure we can find some modern example if we dig deep enough.