"Companies don't make money killing people"

No, they don't make money killing their CUSTOMERS. But they can make a lot of money by not giving a fig about people impacted by their operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

This is why we have regulations, by the way. So when amoral idiots find themselves in a position to do serious harm, there's some external force to compensate (as much as possible) for their lack of suitable ethics and working moral compasses.

If by regulations you mean enforcing property rights and laws against murder, I agree.

In a free market the initiation of force is not tolerated. The Bhopal disaster you cited is a perfect example of an initiation of force.

The government legitimizes the initiation of force on those who have done nothing to violate the rights of others -- similar to the disaster you cited. It seems you have a problem with companies initiating force, but not the government. Why is that?

"It seems you have a problem with companies initiating force, but not the government. Why is that?"

Why does it seem that way? I don't know, it's your impression. You tell me.

I think I understand your point, but the statement has been falsified many times throughout history. Many corporations have prospered on human misery and death.

Often with government backing. The modern nation-state is founded on the premise that the state has a monopoly on physical force; it is hard for a corporation to cause misery and death without that.

I would be more scared about cozy relationships between government and corporations. That is when you get the most egregious offenses, eg. British East India Company + Great Britain vs. India and China, oil companies + US vs. the Middle East, Chinese government + Baidu in censoring their own people, Blackwater Associates + US in Iraq, etc. It is sometimes good to have the interests of corporations and government diametrically opposed, because that means they are not conspiring against the people they serve.