It’s not different, because businesses that are “VERY inefficient” often end up dying. There’s no structural permanence baked into the corporate system that gua

It’s not different, because businesses that are “VERY inefficient” often end up dying. There’s no structural permanence baked into the corporate system that guarantees that a corporation will exist forever. On the other hand, governments and state actors are largely static. The institutions and systems that govern them seldom change. And the larger the polity, the harder it is to build up the political will for democratic institutions to evolve/change. It is very difficult (IMO impossible) for an inefficient government to “go out of business”, so to speak. > There are disadvantages with size and also sometimes advantages such as economy of scale This is absolutely correct, but the market system ensures that whichever corporation becomes large enough to deliver on those economies of scale is selected as a function of their ability to deliver (for the most part). Ask yourself what would happen if we democratically granted Sears a legally authorized monopoly to essentially exist in perpetuity like states and state programs exist today. Would they have been able to efficiently continue delivering value as the world changed? Would we have allowed them to die and be replaced? The fact that they were defeated to the point of bankruptcy by Amazon et al is a feature of the system that is notably lacking in state institutions. In fact, the state institutions that perform the best are the ones that are the smallest/most decentralized: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-podcast-breakingvi/breakingviews-the-exchange-too-small-to-fail-idUSKBN21P3E3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-podcas...