Asklemmy

I admit I am misusing the term "cartel" here, given that it refers to a group of independent interests acting cooperatively, not a single entity. And legally recognized corporations already attempt to form cartels whenever possible, which is the entire purpose of anti-trust law.

And I agree that govt legislations each have their own definitions for what constitutes a "corporation", but it's the same for "marriage". Yet we wouldn't say marriage only exists if you have a govt.

I don't think it's useful or interesting to end the discussion at "a govt defines a corporation, therefore a corporation doesn't exist without a govt". Because I maintain that if the US govt disappeared, all the entities you currently consider "US-based corporations" would not disappear. Similarly, corporations currently operate internationally in many different countries with many different legislative requirements and many different definitions of "corporation". Yet we don't think of them as existing exclusively in the context of any one of those countries.

A corporation can never do that - government laws set out very clearly who controls what

Corporations do have infighting, and Hostile Takeovers do happen, and we are in agreement that ONLY reason they're not bloodier is because of governments enforcing their laws. But also, I shouldn't have made "cartel" analagous to "corporation", since the analogy for a cartel civil war would be multiple businesses or corporations having a falling out.

But we also already have a sordid history of US "corporations" operating outside the laws of other countries, oftentimes with the help of the US military. So how do we square that circle?