Thanks for the thoughtful response. As my point is about individual choice and control, overlapping jurisdictions are not relevant to my point: I'm effect you

Thanks for the thoughtful response. As my point is about individual choice and control, overlapping jurisdictions are not relevant to my point: I'm effect you live under the single "government" that is the superposition of multiple jurisdictions and their interactions. The fact that weed is federally illegal and legal in CA doesn't mean I get to choose which law I like: they add up to a specific de facto set of rules and risks just like a unitary govt would (though less transparently). Similarly, the use of voluntary services is clearly not what I'm referring to as monopolistic and coercive (except for their funding). There are a million and one things the government prevents or compels. > nominal democratic control"- don't get me started. A responsive customer service agent is the devil's version of democracy. No thank you. You've simply misread. "Nominal democratic control" is in reference to govt in my comment, and is contrasted with the lack of such control over corporations. I explicitly avoid the assumption of control over companies through any means other than consumer choice, where it exists.