Corporations left unfettered are no longer corporations. This isn't just semantics. An unfettered corporation no longer has the benefits of government either.

Corporations left unfettered are no longer corporations. This isn't just semantics. An unfettered corporation no longer has the benefits of government either. I'm thinking of things like subsidies, added regulation that raises barriers of entry and limited liability. > regardless of what the pro-lassiez faire types say Not all pro laissez-faire types are strict utilitarians. Most that I know tend to appeal to ethics in addition to a freed market's utility. > but only results that directly benefit themselves That doesn't make any sense. Microsoft has surely provided benefits to a great number of people. Perhaps you'd argue that Microsoft benefited more in certain transactions, but that's an entirely different claim (and it doesn't imply that others didn't benefit at all).