> The difference between private property owners doing this, and > the governemnt doing this is that 100% of private property > owners are NOT going to agree on anything.
This presumes the existence of significant amount of (at least potentially) competing private owners - then it is valid argument. However, there is the growing trend of mergers and consolidations, producing megacorporations and limiting the number of said owners. Some corporate entities have more money than many smaller countries. So said "100% of owners" can easily be both owners of the megastore chains within 50 miles near you. Where you will go then, if smaller local shops were long ago erradicated by said stores (see eg. Walmart strategy)? > The "100%" assumption presupposes that "the capitalists" are > like the state, a single entity with a single will, in which > case it is obvious that simply replacing the will of "the > capitalists" with the will of "the people" would be a vast > improvement, rather than slavery terror and mass murder. It doesn't have to be 100.00%; significant amount is enough to cause rather large-scale inconvenience. This is especially dangerous in areas with high barrier to entry, preventing easy operative formation of new competing subjects. Forming of artificial barriers to entry - closed standards, firewalling of critical technologies with patents, etc. - is another dangerous trend; for many small subjects, interoperability is beneficial, while for one or a handful of big! subjects lack of interoperability (at least without paying obscene fees and signing NDAs) is a neat tool to squeeze the potential competition out of the market.
