To the extent to which one agrees with this argument, it applies at any level of scale: the government isn't the only place from which one experiences "rules".

To the extent to which one agrees with this argument, it applies at any level of scale: the government isn't the only place from which one experiences "rules". Apple has a number of rules for software on its devices, as does Google (though not as many, almost as many); the result being that virtually every device and user is gated by similar rules from one of these two companies... rules that they claim are there to keep us safe, but are often there for their own business interests (aka: the same as a lot of the worst government regulation in the form of rent capture). Do you want to build a new decentralized market with end to end encrypted metadata free anonymous transactions? Sorry, no: you have to filter content that Apple dislikes (such as breastfeeding women <- Instagram directly blamed Apple for their puritanical rules about this), centralize all payments through Apple's bank accounts (so they can take their 30% rake), and ensure the only way for users to get push notifications leaves a trace of metadata on Apple's servers (as Apple prefers a world in which users can't make their own battery tradeoffs). What makes some rules special--what I will argue are the "best rules"--are the rules that prevent people from themselves making up arbitrary rules and enforcing them on large numbers of other people just because they are in a momentary privileged position: we need more of those rules--rules that create level playing fields and allow for competition from small companies attempting to take on giants--and fewer rules about how to prevent specific forms of terrorism.