This is not a disagreement with you, by the way. But just as Rawlsian liberals can't postulate a government that's immune to corruption into existence, libertarians and market fundamentalists can't postulate businesses that don't co-opt government to entrench their market positions.
There's nothing wrong with calling yourself libertarian and supporting some sentimentalized conservative version of government, but government by definition violates the "non-aggression principle".
I don't disagree with you either, in fact you've really only restated what I said.
You can't define your way out of that.
If you are trying to promote some sort of ancap/libertarian approach lets just stop here that view is in my mind as naive as a communist view and there is no basis for those kind of moral claims.
The less powerful the government, the less power there is to be had by co-opting it.
The less powerful ANY organization the less power. It's not exclusive to governments.
Not a monopoly. No real harm either. If you want to complain about where the money went after the transactions were made, that's another subject.
You're so set on arguing with me. I think it's best if you sat down.