This is a facetious retort and adds very, very little value. Maybe there's something else you can provide to further the discussion.

I think your retort conflates "corporation" and "corporation owner / billionaire". Generally the intellectual property, capital, lobbying relationships and business relationships of the corporation are self-sustaining and do a good job of keeping competition at bay. That's axiomatic because if they didn't, the corporation would be succeeded by another which did. Surely you understand that sub-optimal systems can be self-perpetuating.

The core issue isn't so much "Can employees create as much value outside of a corporation?" but rather "How much of that value was created by one particular employee / investor / owner?"

> Man those corporations should really start their own countries, since their owners don't need to pay taxes to their nations and are capable of creating value outside of them.

> That's tautologic

It isn't and the fact that you assert it is proves my point very succinctly.

You're attempting to establish an ideological framework that doesn't require empirical evidence and cannot be challenged logically, because you dismiss challenges to your logically fallacious assertions with zero supporting evidence as invalid because they do not coincide with your axiomatic assertions.

What evidence do you have that better businesses exist and are failing to supplant sub optimal ones because of the reasons you indicate.

Why would you pick those two words as the place to make a strong rebuttal? Especially when the following paragraph explicitly states "The core issue is..." which indicates it might provide a more substantive area of discussion. Even if people concede that you proved me wrong on this, it doesn't affect the core point.

The demand you make cannot be satisfied to someone discussing in bad faith.

- Better businesses exist (no metric for "better")

- because of [whatever] (can always be claimed that it was because of something else)

Instead of showing that -- perhaps we could both agree on the following:

- Some companies, like Boeing, have excellent lobbying relationships.

- Those relationships lead to something we could agree to call "regulatory capture"

- This regulatory capture makes it so that better companies have a much more difficult time supplanting Boeing. Even if it does eventually happen, it probably takes longer and several additional other companies fail before one succeeds.

Surely if Tesla paid their fair share of taxes then Joe-shmo's EV startup would take off.

This is a straw man plucked out of nowhere. The previous discussion is neither about corporate taxes at all, nor about tax-avoidance being a competitive advantage against other companies.

Its called a society