Making myself abundantly clear, I am a big fan of corporations. I'm simply asking, is the state the same thing, fundamentally, as a corporation?
Thats to say, the state provides services, its clients the people pay for them.
Now, the thing is, clients pay by taxation and taxation is an inherently unjust social institution. And are there any other payment channels used by the state to collect fees?
Taxation is paid based on clients' ability to pay it. So they might receive free services if they're unable to pay it. Or pay too much for services they do not receive. Or a million iterations in between.
What is the difference between the public and the private sector. I say these two terms are fabrications, or visionary rumours, used to help people escape from a basic reality - that theres no such thing as a public or private sector - there are only corporations.
And what the great masse believe to be the public sector is just the biggest corporation or the business with the largest monopoly power and biggest private army no doubt. And the multitude of what we think is the private sector are simply their competitors, who lost, and are subservient to the single winning monopoly power.
An analogy that might help observe this idea, is to think about street gangs or even more organised versions like the mafia and organised crime. Can you seriously think of any real difference?
The gang promises to protect you (hopefully, maybe, probably not). in exchange for protection money, in the form of taxation. Or they could more simply steal the people's savings by spending new money into existence to buy stuff with. Whatever, do you see the point?
A corporation is always aiming toward monopoly power, as a primary duty, it might not always get there before going bankrupt or falling. And the biggest monopoly of all is to be able to hold elections and make the law with impunity. And this privilege is only available to the one with the biggest army which is normally used to enforce that ultimate in monopoly power.
This idea is hard to analyse. Because the great masse of people 'need' a powerful and despotic father figure or master - to protect them. And because the idea is an illusion it immediately gets rendered into the unconscious of the collective so a finger can never be put in it. People do not on the whole believe in or want genuine freedom because its too risky. Much easier to form a tacit alliance with a master and be a slave, knowing you will get the protection you prefer... maybe. Probably not.
So this idea of a public and private sector in perpetual competition for rail, health, military, infrastructure services, really is a childish fantasy.
Both are illusions used to escape from the basic reality that we select the best gang leaders to rule us and willingly though reluctantly cough up a very high price in protection money.