"How could you keep a people supporting your government if you were killing people running it?" - er, because government is the monopoly on the use of force as stated in the social contract? And no, there is no trade-off involved. What, switching words around amuses you?
"A government is just type of corporation that is allowed to kill/incarcerate people." -- what, are you from the school for slow Marxists? I don't even know where begin with you. Do some reading on the rise of the merchant classes during the crusades. Perhaps learn a bit from John Locke about Natural Law. Check out some Hobbes and learn some about the social contract. Government is a completely different entity than a corporation. It's like you're comparing earthworms and 747s. Here's a hint for you: can't have a corporation without a government. But you can have a government without a corporation. That's just for starters.
If you'd like to make an extended metaphor, you're going to have to do much better than just saying "X is the same as Y. Now I want to draw some conclusions." You have to be able to differentiate the history, structure, purpose, evolution, issues, risks, and possible future states of each item. then you show how they are the same. Or conversely, you could go to theoretical underpinnings and come up with a list of common attributes that you could claim are all that matter in regards to your statements. The best I could do offhand is note that both governments and corporations consists of "shareholders" and have an executive section. But even then, "shareholder" is not anywhere near how a person relates to their government.
I'm not your teacher. Go find one. Or find the one you used before and ask for your money back. This is dreck.
you presume I haven't read Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes because I've drawn different conclusions than you? How about Burke and Goethe? Spinoza, Hume and Kant? I can fallaciously appeal to authority too, just because I've read all of these writers doesn't mean I can pass off the onus of thinking on them. I see many of the problems in today's society as going directly back to flaws in enlightenment era ideas about government. And why would you call me a slow Marxist? I hate collectivism, are my posts coming off as anti-corporate just because I called the government one? Assuredly the government is a poorly run corporation but that doesn't mean I'm inditing corporations in general.
And it's not a metaphor, I'm saying that government is literally the same as a corporation. The American government is a corporation whose assets are the land between the atlantic and pacific and bordered by canada and mexico. In payment for the use of this land, every person tithes a percentage of any value they earn/create. People also agree to abide by certain rules of conduct. seems all very straightforward to me. No need to invent some special privileges that government is magically imbued with that a corporation wouldn't have.
Think of it this way, if a corporation decided that it would be in its best interests to start operating off of an island in international waters wouldn't the corporation need to defend its holdings with military force and do its own policing?
The idea that government has some sort of mystical, moral, or intrinsic "right" to run things is nonsense. It's just a group of people who by various means, legal, military, or otherwise have gained the ability to determine what happens on a specific tract of land. That they then set up a school system by which people are taught that they do have a moral, mystical, or intrinsic right to run the place should not be surprising.
The fact that corporations have a clear motive and government does not is part of my problem with government. What the hell is purpose of government? If the purpose of government is just to provide security, enforce contracts, keep foreigners at bay, and otherwise provide a stable environment in which people can conduct private business then the U.S. government is doing a piss poor job and ought to be fired.
Do you know what the U.S. is trying to do? because the system by which it arrives at decisions about what to do seems pretty damn opaque to me. It's certainly not public opinion, but nor is it dictatorship since as far as I can see the man supposedly in charge can't hire or fire people, can't affect major policies, can't decide the budget or any other useful thing.
"A government is just type of corporation that is allowed to kill/incarcerate people." -- what, are you from the school for slow Marxists? I don't even know where begin with you. Do some reading on the rise of the merchant classes during the crusades. Perhaps learn a bit from John Locke about Natural Law. Check out some Hobbes and learn some about the social contract. Government is a completely different entity than a corporation. It's like you're comparing earthworms and 747s. Here's a hint for you: can't have a corporation without a government. But you can have a government without a corporation. That's just for starters.
If you'd like to make an extended metaphor, you're going to have to do much better than just saying "X is the same as Y. Now I want to draw some conclusions." You have to be able to differentiate the history, structure, purpose, evolution, issues, risks, and possible future states of each item. then you show how they are the same. Or conversely, you could go to theoretical underpinnings and come up with a list of common attributes that you could claim are all that matter in regards to your statements. The best I could do offhand is note that both governments and corporations consists of "shareholders" and have an executive section. But even then, "shareholder" is not anywhere near how a person relates to their government.
I'm not your teacher. Go find one. Or find the one you used before and ask for your money back. This is dreck.