[rosser]

How does that square with it being an implicit goal of most companies to own their entire market, eliminating that choice?

When there isn't meaningful competition in a market, it's specious to point to the abstract possibility of competition as an argument for sucking it up and cozying up to the monopolist, who has structured your arrangement with them to limit your freedom and recourse as much as practicable.

A profit motive doesn't magically make the human foibles that the "Gubmint is baaad" crowd insists will lead to the end of human freedom — and puppies, too — more manageable, or less dangerous to the rest of us.

[kodablah]

> How does that square with it being an implicit goal of most companies to own their entire market, eliminating that choice?

Oversight. If you want meaningful competition and don't have it due to harmful monopolization, that's the government's problem to solve. Nobody's asking for self-regulating companies here. It's very important to understand which forces can or cannot actually eliminate competition and choice. If there is a path towards choice, I'll take it. Often that path is unclear of course.

[rosser]

The government which we're "stuck" with, and which we shouldn't trust because it's actively dangerous to our freedoms, is what's supposed to protect those freedoms from predatory companies?

How's that working out for us?

[kodablah]

Which is why I argue they are oftentimes less trustworthy than corporations due to the latter's more limited scope. I'm not clear on the argument you are making here. Regardless, the one I am making is that companies are often more trustworthy than governments (the original question) especially since there is technically a level higher in the authority hierarchy.

[rosser]

And I'm saying that, in my experience, that position seems to be more an article of faith for people of a certain ideological bent, than a demonstrable reality.

Maybe my premises and categories blind me to that risk in some way; I'll certainly cede that possibility. I'd be curious to see people who think the way you're describing do the same, vis à vis theirs.

That's the trouble with articles of faith, though: for the people who hold them, they're axioms; for the rest of us, they're implicit, unsupported premises to someone else's argument.