"I'm just confused why people seem to be so afraid of the government getting too big and not also at least a little afraid of corporations getting too big."

You raise valid points but it remains the case that there isn't close to an equivalence there due to government's monopoly on force. All of the worst atrocities and dystopias, whether they've been inwards-focused (famines, hyperinflation, pogroms - North Korea, Venezuela, Cambodia, etc) or outwards-focused (invasions and genocides - Axis powers in WW2) have been perpetrated by governments. You could argue that these aren't real democracies, but liberal democracies are but a hop, skip and jump away from autocratic dictatorial hell as history has shown repeatedly. We have many modern mini-dystopias engineered by governments today. People are right to be fearful.

I don't think all of the worst atrocities have been directly perpetuated by governments, with the most obvious one coming to mind being the transatlantic slave trade, where many companies facilitated the slave trade and also the slaveholding. Also gangs just came to mind.

I do think that even if companies/non-governmental orgs are causing the violence, that ultimately we often look to government to resolve the conflict and/or to protect us, and if they don't, then it becomes their fault for not doing so.

But again, overall, I'm not saying we shouldn't be afraid of governments wreaking absolute havoc and pain upon millions or billions of people, because, as you mention, "liberal democracies are but a hop, skip and jump away from autocratic dictatorial hell as history has shown repeatedly." Governments have harmed so many humans over the history of our species and I think it makes sense to be fearful they will get too powerful and do that. I just think it also makes sense to be a little afraid that corporations/other orgs will get large enough and powerful enough that they could also do damage to us.

To be clear, I think anarchy would be much worse and that governments are necessary. Evidence from the genetic record shows epochs where almost all men died due to violence, and anthropological evidence shows societies can have extremely high murder rates, approaching 50 percent, without a government in place to interrupt blood feuds.

One thing I'll say about modern gangs, however, is that they're in large part caused by governments. The high murder rate in South America is downstream from puritanical government drug restrictions in North America. Gangs will still exist even without perverted incentives provided by government, it's true, but governments are part of the picture here.

Your point about the slave trade is a good one and it just shows that corporations - and people in general - do need at least a minimalist government to protect individual rights.

I really like that point about how government drug policies in North America lead to gang formation in South America. It seems that government creates and resolves conflict, and sometimes get blamed for doing too much of the former and not enough of the latter.

I guess the more that I've thought about running for office, and more so, actually governing, the more that I've started to see how government can get blamed for so many things, direct and indirect. For example, some company moving overseas and laying off its employees, and people blaming the government because it didn't prohibit the company from making that move and protecting people from that company, more so than being angry at the company. Almost like being more angry at the parent who doesn't protect us from our sibling than the sibling who is hitting us.

Anyways, I appreciate our back and forth, thank you for helping me see things a bit differently.

> I do think that corporations can also employ violence, albeit of an emotional, social, or even financial kind, against their users.

That's not violence. "Emotional violence" is a contradiction in terms.