"However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules."
Now, either you're tautalogically defining any organization which sets rules and exacts violence in pursuit of its ends as a government (which is a meaningless distinction), or you're making a nonsense argument. Actually, both are nonsense arguments. Note too that I've included a number of other organizations other than state-registered corporations, though I include those.
Ongoing corporate war through the 2000s carried out by the Gulf Cartel subsidiary Los Zetas in Neuvo Lardo, Mexico, with death tolls running to the 100s annually:
http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html
All of these are cases in which violence was used by companies directly or through conscious and deliberate disregard for human safety and consequences in the aim of profit. The use of force to secure control or direct gains.
Or perhaps you'd like to address companies such as Blackwater (now Xe), armed affiliates of oil, gas, mineral, and diamond operations, forestry operators, and others, who transact directly in death and force?
The distinction you're drawing simply doesn't exist.
Well, let's refer to your initial claim:
"However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules."
Now, either you're tautalogically defining any organization which sets rules and exacts violence in pursuit of its ends as a government (which is a meaningless distinction), or you're making a nonsense argument. Actually, both are nonsense arguments. Note too that I've included a number of other organizations other than state-registered corporations, though I include those.
Yes, historically, companies have acted violently
Sure. Where historically was:
July 6 when Montreal Maine & Atlantic declared total war on the town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-i...
April 17, when West Fertilizer Company declared war on West, Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...
Ongoing corporate war through the 2000s carried out by the Gulf Cartel subsidiary Los Zetas in Neuvo Lardo, Mexico, with death tolls running to the 100s annually: http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html
Ongoing petro-religious corporate warfare in Iraq, with a death toll in the 10s to 100s of thousands: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-a...
May 15,2 2013, Wells Fargo's war against individuals who were not even its mortgage holders: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wron...
November 25, 2012, war on behalf of American and other clothing manufacturers and retailers against Bangladeshi garment workers: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-...
December 2-3, 1984, war by Union Carbide against the citizens of Bhopal, India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
All of these are cases in which violence was used by companies directly or through conscious and deliberate disregard for human safety and consequences in the aim of profit. The use of force to secure control or direct gains.
Or perhaps you'd like to address companies such as Blackwater (now Xe), armed affiliates of oil, gas, mineral, and diamond operations, forestry operators, and others, who transact directly in death and force?
The distinction you're drawing simply doesn't exist.