system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that there is ultimately little difference between the dangers of government power and the dangers of corporate power, and that both act in the interests of a privileged minority. CMV

Due to the large overlap in population and revolving door between wealthy corporate interests and government institutions (including elected officials, unelected bureaucrats, etc), I believe that corporatism and state control cause the same degree of negative effects and are equally dangerous to the vast majority of people who are not part of the wealthy elite.

In the United States, we are presented with a false dichotomy between right-wing "corporatists" and left-wing "statists", when both sides represent entrenched, powerful interests. The interests of both sides (corporations and government entities) are similarly at odds with those of the majority of the population, and in many cases the corporate interests and statist interests are literally the same people with the same agendas.

It is often argued that the role of democracy is to ensure that government works toward the common good, but this ignores an important fact: everyone has one vote, but some people have one vote and billions of dollars with which to influence government. Government will inevitably serve the interests of those who have one vote and billions of dollars over those who just have one vote.

The American right argues that state intervention in the economy and society as a whole is often immoral, unfair, and damaging -- I think this is correct. The American left argues that corporations have the same negative effects, and I think this is correct as well.

I think that the primary cause of this problem is the incestuous relationship between corporations and government ("K Street"), but I also think that further regulations on government behavior to limit this kind of corruption would be necessarily ineffective, due to the intrinsic connection between wealth and political power.

I am most familiar with American politics, so those are the examples I have used here, but I don't think this problem is uniquely American. I would like to be convinced that there is a way that we can limit this destructive tendency, but I cannot envision a way that this can be done (at least not without having hugely destructive effects on the rest of society). At the minimum, it would be helpful if I had a reason to believe that one threat or the other was greater, so that I could choose a "side" to try to make things better. Please CMV.
gpt
Ultimately, what *is* the  difference between Government and Corporates?

The first has a monopoly right of physical force - they have police, an army.

The second does not.

You may be right about incestuous relationships, vested interests, corruption blurring who is who. But in the end, it's the government that holds the gun. In the end, a corporate must trade value with value with it's customers. 

But there is no such compulsion, such necessity to trade value for value if you are holding a gun. 

The government is by far the greater threat.  

Which of these corporates, in particular, have hugely destructive effects on society? The problem is, you can't tar them with the same brush. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook have been forces for *good* in the world, largely without government help, except mostly for the one help the government is meant to provide them, protection from theft. They aren't Enron, Leyman Brothers, AIG, Fannie and Freddie, companies which were in bed with the government, sharing some quasi  monopoly status.

The best solution is to get the Government out of the economics business - for the same reason the Government had to be separated from the Church (or thought business!): people should be able to share whatever thoughts they have, or trade any values they have, free from physical coercion.