Ah. I thought you were responding to me, my bad.
Yes, they were not the ones doing it, they were just too happy to take the profits, and those executives did not seem bothered by the origin of those profits.
I think we agree. Cronies. In this case, cronies of an especially vile sort. But the question remains: Do larger, more powerful governments that absorb a larger percentage of GDP via taxes or outright ownership have more or less to sell to such people? Is there a correlation between the size of a government's coffers and the extent of rent seeking, cronyism and people basically trying to get some of the government's funds diverted to themselves?
You favor very powerful governments. You do not think they will do evil with that power, or at least do not intend that they do so, and/or think that they can be controlled. But the fact remains, you empower government in spite of the almost universally realized risk that such power will be abused, regardless of supposed "checks" on it.
By the way. I have never said such things, so, please, don't pretend to quote something I never said or wrote.
After years of reading your links, it is possible I have misjudged your ideology....but not terribly likely. You will surely correct me if I am mistaken. Are you saying that you are for small government, say pre-1913 US? Or are you some variant of Democrat/Liberal/Social Democrat/Socialist who believes in the power of the State to do good? And that to do good, the State needs, for example, to collect 40%+ of the GDP and use it help those deserving of help? I was very much of the impression that you were somewhere on the D/L/SD/S spectrum. john certainly is and has outright stated that 40% of GDP under government control (roughly where the US is at) is not enough. Am I mistaken in your case?
Could corporations continue to exist if governments were eliminated? How would that work?
No. And that is not what I advocate. To clarify, while I sympathize with much of what most libertarians believe (there are a lot of sub-divisions within that creed), I would not go as far as they do. There is some need for a state. I'd give it a more power than they tend to do (e.g. to conscript, to name one example), but far less power than the US government presently has or than a D/L/SD/S would grant it (they want the US government to have more power than it already has, especially where taxation and regulation are concerned, though often less where national security is concerned).
PS: We'll never agree. But I do think we are being fairly civilized about the disagreement at present. Hope to keep that way, even if the disagreement itself is rather stark.