"It's interesting that you should observe that corporations arose as a response to government. You may be right, but not for the rose-colored reasons you think."

What rose-colored reasons do you imagine I think?

"America's Founders were deeply suspicious of concentrations of power in a few hands, because, as you say, they saw that the result was always the subjugation of the less powerful. Every aspect of the system they designed is intended to resist concentration of power, and to spread it as broadly as possible and to put as much power as possible in the hands of individuals."

Not for equality reasons, but for competitive reasons. E.g it makes no sense to have 3 major car companies if they are not competitive [which they really aren't]. Another example is Boeing and Lockmart- these companies are not really competition, though something like Spacex *could be* competition. Instead of competition they more similar to having a choice in color between orange or brown

"They did a great job addressing the nature of power as it existed in their world. Though it's taken two centuries, their efforts ultimately led to the virtual elmination of monarchy as a form of government throughout the world. They won."

The founders weren't against monarchies, they even considered having one themselves. They were against the power of the State. In that measure, they wouldn't be very happy with the US on that score. Nor considering the totalitarian power of the Soviet Union would have considered the 20th century as a victory in that world cause. But the internet, globalization, somewhat freer markets, and the value generally given to having free markets would have factors in helping them realize that they have won.

"But human nature doesn't change just because we have laws and a Constitution. People have always lusted for power, and they always will. It'd be foolish to rest on our laurels and assume that we've contained the beast of powerlust forever and ever. Those who hunger for power over others will, when one avenue to power is blocked, find another."

Of course people lust for power, they lust for a lot of things. The Frames understand this is a unchanging aspect of human nature and that goes a long way in understand why they formed the constitution the way they did. It also explains why they included the pursuit of happiness as an important and natural right bestow upon humans by it's creator. Seeking power was not considered as evil, but could, or rather, would have evil associated with it.

"In the days of our Founders, power led to wealth. The powerhungry realized that it would work just as well to turn the equation around: Wealth leads to power."

I don't know what you are trying say, but money is power. And wealth can be converted into money [by selling, or as more common today used as collateral]. Money is a tool or system of getting people to do something [or power] and that is why money is good thing and has huge value [compared lacking such a system] to get things done by more than one person- not by a system which threats to kill or infict pain if they choose not to do whatever it is. Money allow one to do things "from the goodness of your heart" to get paid for it or pay for it.

"The economic rationale of the corporation is the greater efficiency of concentration of assets and facilities and people under one organization; the evasion of risk through the "limited-liability" premise of a corporation1; and the opportunity for control through hierarchichal command-and-control structure."

It's could be said you are completely wrong all counts. Efficency isn't something associated with corporations, and makes it is a target for lawsuits or is safer bet for government because big corporation are worth billions of dollars [therefore can NOT evade risk in this regard- though the people who own stock are limited in risk [only the value of the stock], AND "hierarchichal command-and-control structure" said simply, has much to be desired.

"Those very same properties make a corporation a perfect instrument for exercizing power."

LOL

"It's hardly an accident, nor a conspiracy, that laws addressing monopolistic and anti-competitive practices (in plain English, economic bullying) had to be passed shortly after the corporate form became popular in the late 19th century. In that first era, monopolists and oligarchs focused on killing off the competition. As their positions became more secure, they moved on to using their economic power to control marketplaces and the behavior of consumers, and on buying government power; and over time the nature of economic regulation has evolved into consumer protection laws. The full spectrum of evolved economic regulation addresses such problems as false advertising and fraud, investment fraud targeted at the economically unsophisticated, predatory lending practices, health inspection of food processors and later regulation of pharmaceutical safety, workplace health and safety...well, I could go on forever, because the list of economic regulations is exactly as complex as our economy has become. Economic regulation addresses the threat of economic power under the same rationale as our Constitution addresses governmental power: To limit the power of others to control our lives."

So. You have the State controlling the lives of it's citizens and I guess the only problem with the Prohibtion against Alcohol was it was little ahead of it's time- or then again perhaps because it's wrong because religious women thought it was a good idea.

"Once upon a time, gb, power created wealth, but now wealth creates power. No matter its nature, we must always oppose concentration of power in the hands of the few if we're to have any hope of maintaining our freedom."

Let me restate it, once upon a time money was limited or practically nonexistant as far as most people were concerned. As money use become more widespread, the power of the sword controlled less.

"1. In a sense, a corporation is a financial instrument. The limitation on liability is intended to loosen the purse strings of investors by eliminating any downside beyond losing the investment. It's a well-intentioned idea as originally envisisioned, but it's had the unfortunate side-effect of too-often shielding corporate executives from the consequences of their misdeeds. To hold the Ford Corporation responsible for those killed by exploding Pintos is meaningless--somebody, some person made the decisions that led to those deaths. But instead, the "corporate entity" took the fall and paid a fine. Can you honestly say that that was right?"

As I said, I favor free enterprise, but corporations are more of a product of govt than free markets. The Pinto is an example of what corporation do. Now, apparently you think it would be good if people who bought a Pinto [which was obviously a piece of shit as far as cars go] who get into an accident [which probably wasn't their fault because they were rear ended] at collision speed of around 25 mph and the results being injury or death from the gas tank rupturing, should recieve huge amounts of money to punish the Ford company- or maybe you prefer the execs to serve long prison terms or maybe executed?
I could care less about Ford or the other large America Car Companies- if they closed down tomorrow this would be fine with me. But I fail to see how a large lawsuit helps- though I do see how it helps in general terms to encourage "greedy" lawyers. Btw, we presently are in a huge Gold Rush, as far as lawyers are concerned. How is it good that doctors can't practice medicine for fear of lawsuits. And are these lawsuits making exec better execs? Does it make better cars because of lawsuits? Or does it simply increase the cost of everything for the consumer? I guess there is some good if you think it's important to reduce comsumption- but what does the Pinto represent other than a poor attempt to reduce consumption?