Not only that, but the ancient proto-corporations were not partners with government, they were governments.
For about 20 years, the Mississippi Company was worth between $5-7 trillion, adjusted for inflation. That's about 6 Microsofts, and at the time of the Mississippi Company there were many chartered trading companies that ruled over their dominions with iron fists. Microsoft doesn't have a private army.
How did puny little Microsoft/Google/Apple/BP/GE/Chase/whoever/whatever "end" the class war when Standard Oil did not?
Im all for experimenting. I’m not for handing over local legal power to a corporation in one fell swoop because they promise to pay for my taxi as long as I’m in their good books.
No—the immediacy and totality they’re pursuing is the thing that bothers me. Little compromise seems to be offered. They seem to think like vey corporations do—they should be able to “just buy it”. I don’t like that. Not everything is for sale.
Are you referring to buying land from a country? That's a form of cession, and it's certainly not unprecedented (see: Louisiana Purchase). In my eyes, it's the moral way to go about acquiring land, with the alternatives being annexation and conquest.
Under what conditions are you okay with territorial control changing hands? Can land only be sold to other existing governments?
Have a nice holiday.
Edit: it’s one of the first items returned in a search of the subject— https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sidewalk-la...
In 2008, the American federal government bailed out JP Morgan: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/jpmorgans-12-billion...
Now you tell me, who's bigger? America has huge companies that are nevertheless tiny in relation to her GDP and government expenditure. America happens to be quite populous, geographically-large, rich in resources, and highly-developed. It stands to reason that she supports many of the world's largest companies.