In your post you were defending government in general (which specific type is irrelevant) and regulations. I pointed out that the corporations you so condemn will always have an incentive to take over that govt and abuse its regulatory power for their own benefit. Being a democrat or not is irrelevant. I am showing that govt IS the problem and it's power should be neutralized.
Specific type of government is never irrelevant. I'd never sit here and defend feudalism or Italian fascism or whatever loony system you can come up with.
But the interesting thing about your post is that if I remove the very last line, it sounds like a potent argument for socialism. If your claim is that entities whose sole goal is money will eventually consolidate, gain power, and negatively affect government and therefore society, how is that an argument against government? Even in the complete absence of government, they'd still do whatever the hell they wanted to make money, and their actions would still negatively affect society. History has shown that companies can get away with all kinds of horrible stuff and people will still happily buy their products, so I doubt I'd rely too much on the free market running offenders out of business.
Basically, if you neutralize the government's power, who do you think is going to take it? Unless you think that power vacuum is just going to sit there chilling with nobody stepping in and every person and every corporation always acting unselfishly and in the best interests of society.
e: looks like you edited your post after I quoted it
