> trivializes the problem of corporations with more power than nation-states. But they don't have more power than nation states. Last I checked nation states h

> trivializes the problem of corporations with more power than nation-states. But they don't have more power than nation states. Last I checked nation states had guns, and guns are still very much the real source of all power in this world. Apple has a lot of money. That makes them economically dependent on a larger surface area of not only nation states but other corporations. In a way it gives them less power. A more personal analogy: a regular old Joe or Jane can say anything they want on social media with little fear of anything bad happening because their economic dependency surface area is small. A corporate CEO must watch what they say much more carefully, as Elon Musk learned with his various stupid tweets. A government official on the other hand, like Trump, can say asinine provocative things all day with little consequence because he's in a high position in an organization with guns. Xi Jinpeng is even more immune as his government has fewer checks and balances. In terms of practical freedom of speech and political/social action, being rich outside the protection of the state is probably the least powerful position you can be in.