You're willfully misinterpreting the GP.

"Separation of corporation of state" should be interpreted in the same light as separation of church and state - using the state to clearly define boundaries and avoid interference on the state from the church (or corporations), not to give them autonomous and unregulated powers.

Citizens United gives corporations leeway to spend as much as they want to help elect officials and influence citizens' electoral decisions, thus inverting the power structure and reinforcing the de facto oligarchy. To separate, we need to regulate.

> using the state to clearly define boundaries and avoid interference on the state from the church

There's also a clearly defined boundary where the church is immune from government influence.

So, if the government isn't allowed to regulate what churches preach, what's the equivalent for corporations? Not being allowed to regulate what they sell?

There is at least some regulation of what churches preach. Hate speech and incitements to violence can and has brought the attention of the FBI on various churches and sects. But I would say there's already a very similar light regulation on advertisements. Truth in advertising is a thing, but not much of one.

> There is at least some regulation of what churches preach. Hate speech and incitements to violence can and has brought the attention of the FBI on various churches and sects.

I'm a bit confused here. I think we're using the word regulation differently.

I don't tend to think of regulation as paying attention to people who do legal things that happen to correlate with doing illegal things. I don't particularly like this practice, but out of the many labels I could think of to apply to it, regulation isn't one of them.

I tend to think of regulation as making a specific behavior (or perhaps a specific way of doing something) illegal, especially if there are financial penalties applied to preforming said behavior.

Would you mind elaborating on what definition you were using here? I don't think I've ever run into this particular use of the word before.

Let's not be disingenuous. We know what he really means. Everyone wants to end the extreme influence and entanglement that corporations have over government officials and government processes.

And the government doesn't exist except via the authorization of the citizens, who own and work for corporations and run and belong to churches, which is why keeping these entities from influencing each other is a pipe dream.

Of course corporations can exist without a government, they predate the current system and the current type of governments.

In many ways they can't as it is the state that created the markets they operate in and it is the state who helps them maintain their monopolies.

>it is the state that created the markets

This is historically inaccurate.

The fact that the term "black market" exists is proof enough to demonstrate that claim.

That states have always tried their darndest (with varying degrees of success) to control markets to e.g. tax them is a better way of looking at things.

Black markets just operate on top of white markets, often using the same exact state-backed money. Hunter-gather groups and other social structures known to exist before states generally operated on gift economies. There's not really any anthropological evidence that markets existed prior to the formation of states. Read the first few chapters of Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber (RIP).

What I said is:

> it is the state that created the markets they operate in

There's many large corporations who are only still around because of the state, they wouldn't survive on the kind of market you're probably thinking of.

Without the state the big ones would turn into fiefdoms (and probably will anyway).

Markets form naturally from consensual interactions of goods and services for money.

I suppose you could argue the government creating the money allowed the market but alternatives currencies would be created like gold or now crypto.

Markets with particular rules that help keep monopolies in place don't form naturally. They require a state entity to enforce the rules.

Guess this means we should remove as many rules as possible to avoid monopolies.

Not at all, not conceptually and not historically.

You do realize there's many corporations today who only exist because of taxpayer bailouts or thanks to large government contracts, right?

There are humans that are being kept alive by medical machines, this doesn't mean humans can't live without machines.

> Corporations don't exist as an entity except via the authorisation from government.

Eliminate corporations from being legal entities. They shield employees from their illegal actions and provide a shield against lawsuits. Then we could avoid the extra litigation necessary for Peircing the corporate veil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil