[ahomescu1]

> Corporations are created for the benefit of the corporation, and as they get hyper-large they don't even serve the needs of their own employees; they become self-aware, and their survival and growth becomes their reason for existence.

I think this is getting a bit out of hand. Corporations aren't alive or self-aware, in the end humans make all the decisions, and most of the time for the benefit of those same humans.

> Governments can be concerned with my interests. It's impossible for corporations to play that role.

Corporations are led by CEOs (and other officers of the company) and by the board, while government is led by the president (or equivalent from other countries) and the legislative (Congress in the US, Parliament in others). How much does POTUS or the average Congressman care about your interests? They only care as far as it wins them the next election, but that's not much different from a corporation: a corporation might care about your interests as long as you're a paying customer. Government ceases to care about you when you stop voting, companies cease to care when you stop buying.

[a3n]

> I think this is getting a bit out of hand. Corporations aren't alive or self-aware, in the end humans make all the decisions, and most of the time for the benefit of those same humans.

It was a metaphor.

If the mom and pop in a mom-pop business decided to retire and disband the business, that can happen. Or if mom and/or pops suddenly died, the business has an excellent chance of dying with them.

I seriously doubt the CEO and board of General Electric could decide to disband General Electric. The corporation is effectively protected by its size and its existence. It may as well be self-aware, because its continuation trancends and outlives its human maintainers.

If the CEO suddenly died, there would be no thought of giving up and disbanding. The corporation's rules would immediately come into play, and a temporary CEO would be on duty immediately, followd by a search.