Imagine if we nationalised Uber.
Stallman's initial realisation was a reaction to crony capitalism: he could not modify the printer due to IP rules. Essentially, a deal is done between government and big business (the manufacturer and possibly the university), at the expense of hackers (individuals).
The justifications for copyright are rooted in common-good arguments. The state limits individual freedom, claiming that it should because of (undemonstrated) common-good advantages. Hayek explores this, and takes a position against IP in _The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_.
A better political analogy for free software is a conflict from early US history: between landowner and state rights advocates (Jefferson) vs big-business visions (Hamilton).
1. A government regulating a market is one thing while a company regulating a market is yet another thing.
2. As Stallman puts it: "We should not allow a company to have a share over around 10% of any market. If in a certain field a single dominant company is beneficial for society, that means it is a natural monopoly, and should be served by a regulated utility."