"The growing militancy of the Republican right..."
What is this "militancy"... does she mean the fact that real Americans are actually speaking up for once, hopefully before it's too late?
Rabble-Rousers have monopolized the "Town Square" for so long, they think it's an "uprising" when someone else has something to say... lol.
Let me try to respond from the "militant" perspective:
There's nothing wrong with a company going "public" to raise capital. The shareholder-run company model is just a group of private individuals banding together in a private activity.
It's literally nobody else's business what they do or how they do it, insofar as they don't violate anybody else's rights in the process... just like any other voluntary activity of free people.
Two people going into business together, is not qualitatively different than 75,000 shareholders doing the same thing.
(On the other hand... Everything is wrong with the "stakeholder-run" model, that's nothing more than a mob-takeover of private enterprise.)
The only problem with the MegaCorp model, or Crony Capitalism, is the extent to which they partner with Big Gov to their own unfair advantage, skewing what should have been a "level" playing field by tapping into all that Control-Freak power that the Government was never supposed to have in the first place.
Overwhelming Market-share is not an insurmountable obstacle for upstart competition.
But... writing the Public regulations for your own industry to secure that market share... is.
That's where monopolies come from.
The elephant in the room that collectivists don't want to talk about... the Root of this problem, is obviously the over-abundance and over-concentration of illegitimate power in government.
The power of Force inherent in Government, has no place in the Business Arena whatsoever.
Business happens in the private sector. If somebody's rights are violated, call a cop.
Otherwise, keep the Government out of it, that's not what Government is for.
And, no... that does not mean that there should be "no regulation" of industry.
For example, you could make a reasonable argument for the EPA to exist... or at least for that function to exist.
You could not, on the other hand, make a reasonable argument (not reasonable to me anyway) for them to have an $11 Billion budget , including a couple Billion to "tackle" global warming and environmental "justice". More than half of the remainder, $5.1B, allocated for "Science & Technology"... another activity that should be happening entirely within the Private Sector, rather than having a public agency conducting its own self-perpetuating "research"; obviously a conflict of interest.
(...not to mention, a couple hundred of their own well-funded and well-equipped paramilitary "Special Agents" to take on Greenpeace and Earth First! with night-vision, drones & M-16s...?!)
They are simply incentivized to grow perpetually, in both influence and resource-consumption... just like every single bureaucratic entity that has ever existed and ever will exist.
That's why we need to keep them in check, and trim the fat continuously.
But we don't do that. We do the exact opposite in every case.
Designing any complex system, such as Government, is all about establishing/enforcing incentives and constraints. Do it right, and the system will behave the way you wanted it to... predictably and reliably.
Do it wrong... and it will behave in a way that you didn't want it to... also predictably and reliably.
Collectivists, unfortunately, don't seem to think that we're doing it "wrong" at all... because this is exactly how they want the perpetually-expanding scope of Applied Force from the U.S. Government to be imposed on their neighbors; enforced compliance limited only by the fleeting whims of the imaginary Collective, and not by anybody's stupid "rights".
But an argument against omnipotent (effectively unregulated) bureaucratic agencies is not necessarily an argument against their purported function that is their excuse d'etre.
A private business, as such, has no more right to violate your rights than I do as a private individual.
The other side of that coin, is that it also has no fewer rights.
Conceivably... there could arise industry-specific issues that may warrant "new" legislation.
I would argue that if the Law doesn't already cover it... then the Law is too specific. Fix that... don't just keep adding new laws (and introducing new unintended consequences... requiring additional legislation... etc., etc., etc.) ...just to keep the self-appointed Aristocracy of Lawyers/Politicians busy cashing paychecks.
But, let's say that some conflict-of-Rights arises between a Corporation and some other party, that remarkably has no analogy in the long history of legal precedent already evolved to protect life, liberty and stuff.
Ok... so first: if it really has no such precedent, then you'd better be pretty convincing about how and why you think it's a violation of somebody's actual rights in the first place (without creating a new "Right" out of whole-cloth... which the Government has no authority to do anyway.)
And if you have actually "discovered" a new right or a unique way to violate a right... then fine; get your legislators to write a new law to cover it. But, you know who has no business being involved in that process in any way?
The business that you propose to regulate.
Any participation by them (let alone effectively managing the entire process), is clearly and undeniably a conflict of interest.
Such back-room dealing should be expected to result in dramatic consequences for all involved. But, of course, we don't do "consequences" at all for Big Government overreach... because such overreach and excessive Power is exactly the goal of those who want to use the Government against otherwise "free" people to impose their own Collectivist ambitions.
Bottom line: the Government has too much power, and too little accountability. Those are the complementary causes, for the problem that Collectivists want to fix with more Government power and less accountability.
Not a good plan.