It is interesting that you bring up corporations since the "State" (erroneously called "government") is a corporation.
What then is a corporation?
A "corporation" is a group of people who agree to act in concert in accordance with a certain set of protocols (e.g., having a "Board of Directors" and "management" structure, "shareholders" and "stock" which can be traded under certain conditions, as defined by the regulations of the government under which the corporation is chartered, etc.. A "government" is a special-purpose corporation
that is created to provide a uniform system of protocols called "laws" to "govern" a given territory. Among other things, this system of "laws" exists to place the use of force under non-arbitrary control, so that "the gun under the table" may itself be governed.
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
The difference between government and Santa Claus is that somebody told you the truth about Santa Claus.
Interesting fact about Santa Claus: "He" has far greater cultural and economic impact than you will ever have, mere "real" person! How is this possible? Of course Santa Claus does not exist as a physical magic person with magic flying reindeer. "He" does
exist as a cultural meme prevalent in our society, the exact same sense in which "Jehovah God Almighty" exists. In both cases, people choose to act in concert in various ways because they value the meme. The meme has powerful effects in reality as a result.
Political abstractions like "government," "rights," "corporations," "laws," etc. "exist" and have their effects in reality in the same way.
Authority, as a right to command, does not exist.
Neither, in your metaphysics, does a "right" not
to be commanded. How much does a "right" weigh? What is it made of?
You can not choose somebody to command me since you yourself do not have a right to command me.
The State's alleged authority works like this: Do what we say or we will kill you.
Well, there you go. "Authority" is the ability to impose one's will upon another by force. I can gain the "authority" to command you by drawing my gun first
. Of course, you can gain the "authority" to command me if you're faster on the draw. Notice that there are no "rights" involved here. All we're talking about here is physical capacity to wield force against one another. If I can get a gang together, even if you draw first one of us can probably still bring you down before you kill us all, so you'd probably better do what we say. The same applies if you get a gang together first.
So, each individual, and groups of individuals working together, have a capacity
(not a "right," that's one of those abstractions you're denying), to impose their will on others by initiating force. This is all very concrete, very real in the direct, physical sense of the term.
Now, every place where people exercise this capacity at will (Somalia, Syria, etc.) is demonstrably a hell-hole. Few, if any people genuinely want to live like that. You
don't, or you'd be on the first tramp freighter to Somalia you could find. So, people invented a solution to the problem of random violence: they delegate
their capacity for violence to an organization of people to wield on their behalf. In exchange for this privilege, the organization of people agrees to do everything in their power (which they have been given) to make violence within the territory they control non-random.
This group of people create a set of rules or principles that define when they can, and cannot use force. In addition, this group of people act in concert to prevent individuals or other groups of people from using force.
In this way, the use of force itself is brought under control, so that the people living under the system can have some ability to predict when and under what conditions force can or will be used, and organize their lives accordingly. For example, if the city a trader lives in and the city in the next valley are both under the control of the same group of people, and that group of people acts to prevent other people from, say, ambushing travelers along the road to loot them, then the trader can load up a wagon of goods and take it to the other city to sell. S/he can do this with some degree of confidence because even if there are still some highwaymen out there, they have to act in secret and limit their numbers in order to stay under the radar of the group of people to whom the trader has delegated the use of force. The trader may need to hire a few bodyguards, but s/he won't need an army.
We call this group of people to whom we delegate our capacity to use force a "government." Now, "governments" can be organized in a number of different ways and under different principles (e.g. "monarchy," "oligarchy," "representative constitutional democracy," etc., and some of these work better for protecting the people who live under them and enhancing their prosperity than others.
"Government" turns out to be quite a remarkable invention. Not only does it put a damper on random violence and enhance public safety, it can be used to provide all manner of public goods that disorganized individuals could not provide for themselves. For example, roads--and a system of rules for traveling on them that, when heeded, prevent vehicles from crashing into one another--airports (with, you guessed it, another set of rules for aircraft), railroads, enforced rules that protect commons such as our shared environment, money for scientific research and development, a social safety net that (when designed and operated properly) makes it so that a medical emergency or the loss of a job does not ruin one's whole life. And on, and on, and on.
Like any invention--especially a very powerful invention--it can be misused to do horrible things. So can rockets, but that doesn't mean we want to destroy all rockets, does it?
"But I don't choose to delegate my capacity to use force to this 'government' of yours! I don't agree! Just because I won't pay taxes to your 'government' doesn't mean you can command me not to drive on the roads it builds or enjoy its national parks or take shelter behind its military! WHA'EVAH! I DO WHAT I WAAANT!"
Very well. You'd better get off our land then. Because, as soon as you decide to wield
your capacity to use force against others at will, refuse to pay your fair share for the operation of our government or the like "because nobody can command you," you'll find out the hard way that we can.
We are members of a civilization. We can cooperate
(a power you lone-wolf libertarian anarcho-capitalists lack), and we can bring far more force to bear than you can all by your lonesome.
Now, you're welcome to hold your eccentric beliefs
if you like. You're welcome to hate our civilization and our government and criticize both openly, so long as you don't practice
your belief that you can use force whenever you like, refrain from paying taxes, obeying laws, etc. because you think no rules apply to you. Our civilization incorporates and values certain abstractions called "rights," such as a "right" to hold and express an opinion even if it's idiotic, a "right" under certain conditions to call land and other objects "your property" and expect that our government will act to prevent others from randomly taking it from you, etc.. However, these "rights" are an abstraction of the same sort that our "government" and "civilization" are, so if you deny the legitimacy of the latter two and act on it, you cannot claim the protection of the first.