I wasn't addressing the issue of surveillance in my first comment to this thread, only the misuse of Weber's observation and definition.

Focusing on that for a moment:

There are companies which have visited violence on people. Often in a limited fashion, though not infrequently of an ulimited nature. Smith's Wealth of Nations discusses the companies of his times which operated their own private armies and navies. (He was Not A Fan.) There are today private armed forces, whether cast as private security, police, or mercenaries. Pretending that there's some inherent divide between governments which engage in deadly force and private industry which does not is simply false.

The worst abuses occur where governments and indsutries work hand-in-hand. That is part of the particular evil of ur-industrialism in its Fascist incarnation, where an elite industrial and financial class joins with a political group to wage genocide on its own people as well as the world. Note that Nazi Germany didn't operate without international support, and that companies including IBM provided direct, ongoing, contracted support for Nazi activities, including the Holocaust, throughout WWII. The tattoos you see on the arms of Holocaust survivors are in fact IBM-generated identification codes.

What I'm concerned about is unipolar power organised without restraint or separation of power, though constructing an effective-yet-functional separation also proves difficult. (The model inherent in the US constitution appears to function poorly in the face both of political parties and a division of the country in which no common agreement on basic facts seems possible.)

In the case of information and communications monopolies, which I've previously argued inherently give rise to censorship, propaganda, surveillance, and targeted manipulation, (See: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/7bfcf170eefc013863fa002590d8e... (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470)) there is a symbiosis between state and private / corporate activities and engagement. One part of the stimulus of the development of intrusive, ubiquitous, and privately-operated social networks was the NSTIC, National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, described by Alex Howard of O'Reilly Media as "[A Manhattan Project for Online Identity](http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/05/nstic-analysis-identity-pri...)".

One of the inherent problems in government is in designing tools and systems which can be effective, whilst being aware that as much as they'll help your own interests whilst you have some control over them, they'll serve the goals of your political opposition when _they_ gain power. (Note that thsi problem is not limited to government, and that there are numerous companies which have evolved far from the interests of their own founders over time. This seems to happen especially in the publishing and media space, see H.L. Mencken's American Mercury or The Learning Channel.) I'm not sure how that is ultimately to be dealt with, though I also believe that any tool which is useful is also of necessity potentially harmful.

But the notion that the solution to minority or tyrannical capture in government is to eliminate government's role in a domain and assign it instead to instituations based on minority and tyrannical control, that is, privately-owned businesses unanswerable to the general public and with an unlimited scope of monopoly control ... seems to have a few flaws.

Government and politics, for all their flaws, are literally the mechanism by which a public and polity comes to a mutual and shared agreement and actions.

And misquoting and misrepresenting Weber does that fact a tremendous disservice.