Corporations are not “de facto” governments just because they’re large and profitable. They may have governance structure within themselves, but they don’t have a monopoly on the use of force anywhere, they don’t tax, and they’re not sovereign. Moreover, what de jure government do they functionally supersede in the places where they’re the de facto government? This is a tortured argument.

> It is a de facto government

Say you're a US citizen. You can choose not to buy an Apple product. You cannot chose to not pay your taxes.

This is just one of many distinctions between a government and a corporation.

>You cannot chose to not pay your taxes.

But you can move to another state/country. They aren't claiming it is apples to apples but claiming apples to oranges is disingenuous at best.

I think what they are trying to equate, and have done that poorly, is that Apple has equivalent POWER to some governments. However it is functionally NOT A government and not even close - their mandates, structures and most everything are completely at odds.

Moving to another state or country because you don't like their taxes is a vastly different response than refusing to buy a phone because you don't like the manufacturer's stance on human rights.

From an assets and income standpoint, maybe, but they’re not a de facto government unless they have sovereignty, and they don’t. Once they can decide on which wars to start with which countries, maybe we can talk then.

Maybe when wars are not fought at the behest and for the benefit of the wealthy we can say they are not a de facto government.

It is not a government, de facto or otherwise.

Apple does not have tax authority over you.

Apple does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in any geographic region.

Apple does not pass or enforce laws or have citizens.

It is big and rich and powerful, and like all big and rich things with that much reach, literally cannot do anything without making someone angry.

This does not make it a government, and pretending it is one is a silly distraction from holding it to account when it does something bad.

Money alone does not a government make.

That's a rather naive thing to say about the wealthiest corporation in the world. I can't deny the overwhelming influence of money on governments so easily.

Influence on governments is really not at all comparable to being a government.

> It is a de facto government

I can't understand why you'd think that.

What characteristics of a government do you think it has? Assets and income? A government is something that 'governs', not something that has assets and income.

You should have said, Apple has the same amount of POWER as some governments. That would be more appropriate.

And what would be the real division line between having the same power as a government and being a government? Negotiating collective trade agreements on behalf of constituents? Creation and enforcement of rules? C'mon, light up that line for me because I think it vanishes under light.