On fundamental level what is the difference between a state and a corporation

On fundamental level what is the difference between a state and a corporation.

State has monopoly on violence.

Corporations are controlled by CEOs who know what they are doind and follows the market aka an actual democratic way to decide what is valuable and good and what isn't. The market is good and the state opress the market and the capitalists, therefore it is bad and should be destroyed.

I figured but that seems like a weak answer, since all it really means is that a state is an overwhelmingly power corperation.

What about the fact that corporations with monopolies they can manipulate the market itself to their benefits. I fail to see the difference.

Depending on the form of government, the head of a state does not own all the property held by the state. The head of a corporation does.

/thread

What if the corporation is owned by many people and then the acting head of the company is actually beholden the owners

Corporation is strictly for profit.
State has a cultural and historical and ideological backing, even if we ignore other differences.
Believe it or not, ideas matter.

This is the closest I can see to a correct answer. But even corporations are locked by the culture of where they come from. And Ideally in the broadest term the state is suppose to benefit the people or bring profit to them.

Actually, this is pure ideology, and recent ideology. There is no tradition of this arrangement until the end of the 20th century, or even any legal principle that requires it, and there is no evidence that shareholder control makes companies perform better. The rise of the shareholder value ideology in the last few decades coincides with an 80% drop in life expectancy for corporations. It's an advertising strategy to attract investment that got way out of hand.

State can restrict your freedom, Corporations can not.

What if they buy up all the water?

Then they´ll make a lot of money or more likely some state will come and restrict their property rights.

Citizenship and a difference in the social contract. One is the suborned right to the fruits of your labour for protection and the other is suborned direction of your labour for a guaranteed pecuniary compensation. Also, a corporation has an owner(s), stewards, and tenants. A nation has citizens and rulers.

You can choose to define corporation and state in such a way that this is true.

This is a *pure semantics* thread. Please leave.

Not an argument.

Depends on the power of the corporation. A very powerful corporation would most certainly restrict your freedom in the name of profits.
You mistook me I meant to say that a corporation is beholden to its owners regardless of how big or small that group is. I believe states follow the same principle.
Some of that is just a difference of semantics. But I agree a major difference is the access to violence a state has. But that is only the case because the state is overwhelmingly powerful and often corporations may use states to do their violence for them.

No it was not meant to be I was intrigued by the idea that many of modern states started out in a way as something more akin to a company than modern states. I also wonder if coperations would take over the power of states if state power collapsed for some reason.

See This is the best possible answer

States control territory

A corporation is organized to make money and negotiates voluntary contracts with people backed up by the threat of litigation within a legal framework overseen by some third party. A corporation only has the powers willingly given to it via contract.

A state is organized to manage populations and mandates obedience from its subjects via laws that are backed up by the threat of violence. The state's mandate is derived from whoever holds the real power (violence). If the common people together pose the biggest threat then they are the source of the State's mandate and it must acquiesce to the will of the people. Similarly if the power resides in the hands of an elite few (aristocrats) then they dictate policy instead.

In a thriving free market competition is too fierce for monopolies to exist unless they have some ridiculously huge advantage. Cornering the market is also more difficult, savvy traders can easily spot unusual price fluctuations and react accordingly.

This is the strength of market forces, when individuals are despooked and start to act in their self-interest it presents a huge obstacle to the collectivists. We like to imagine communist utopias and things where everything "good" somehow magically happens, but in the real world the closest thing to it is liberty.

I think you fail to account for the fact that once corporation gains an extreme advantage and gets to the size of something akin to a monopoly it is prohibitively difficult to dislodge them through market means. Meaning that over a long trend Monopolies will form.
Good answer, I guess the heart of my question was not how are the different but in what ways they are the same. That is the more interesting question.

So do corporations. Also, depending on whether you consider older governments to be states. You can say that states for a very long time where based on tied to individuals rather than ties to land.

corporations have rules
states have laws

>the head of a state does not own all the property held by the state. The head of a corporation does.

It's literally the definition of a corporation that it is NOT owned by one person you drooling mong.

Free market will ALWAYS lead to monopolies.

Monopolies are impossible in free markets.

Rockefeller and Carnegie would say different.

Those were neither free markets nor monopolies.

this

>Depends on the power of the corporation. A very powerful corporation would most certainly restrict your freedom in the name of profits.

How?

FFS

>2016
>hasnt played MGS V

Organization is fundamentally different. A corporation is owned by an indeterminate number of people equivalent to financial contribution they put into the corp. It is possible to have the shares divided equally among a million people, or for three of those million to control 30% of the corporation between them, or for one of them to control 60%.

States, while having varied systems of organization, franchise, and beholdeness, often have no equivalent. Somestimes you have an absolute monarchy where the "ownership" of the state is in one person, bequeathed to his or her heirs. Sometimes you have a western style representative democracy, in which all citizens have an equal share (at least in theory) of the ownership of the state. Sometimes you have a theocratic, where "ownership" is attributed to a deity and is managed by said deity's spokespeople.

Could you please translate it from fedora-speak?

Fundamentally, a corporation seeks to maximize profit, or some notion of material wealth. A state seeks primarily to perpetuate its own existence indefinitely.

If North Korea were a corporation, they would acting in a very different manner than they do as a state.

>State:
>Universal (within it's borders)
>Monopoly on violence
>Predicated on some theory of power
>Corporation:
>Basically a club
>Bound by the rules of states
>predicated on corporation law

Really they're wildly different concepts.

On a FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL what are the similarities?

It's a joke you sperg.

MGS V was infamous because Konami cut the second half of the game to rush a release

Give me a mathematical demonstration of why that's so.

x-p = x as p limits to zero.

It depends on the industry, if there is an extreme benefit to scaling up or an ability to control access, then they tend to form.

By forcibly extracting wealth from you

Good answer

le etat, c'est moi

How? If they came to me and took my wallet I'll call papa state to beat 'em up

/thread

...

It's much, much harder to tell if a state is doing well. A corporation makes money, a state has to do dozens, maybe hundreds of things. Making money isn't one of them, either, except most states have to literally make money. To be specific, corporations earn and spend money, while states destroy and create it, ideally in equal amounts to not fuck with the money value.

>/thread on your own post

That isn't a demonstration, that's a truism.

>HDI;
>increase in GDP(of course, you get some weird situations with that metric);
etc.

So sometimes you have a family business, a co-op, a publicly traded corporation, or a non-profit.