> For example, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, all monopolies are granted by the state in one way or another.
I don't see that. They could just not care. As I said it depends on what state you mean. Are you thinking a particular one? Because the state could be busy or care about other stuff than handling monopolies. Maybe there is a war going on, political in-fighting, military coup, etc. If a company buys every other competitor and is now the sole electric toaster maker some governments could just care less.
> This is why you can't talk about democracy without a strong culture focusing on the individual's rights, aka liberalism, otherwise all you have is a tyranny of the majority.
Of course. So it depends. Again, are you talking about a particular instance or in general. You can certainly talk about anything you want. The "culture of individual's rights" may not last long if a large majority of the citizens decided to either directly vote against or elect officials who are against it. Can the citizens effectively influence the government to change or can't?
> You're also deeply wrong. The fundamental difference between a state and corporations is that the state has a monopoly on violence and anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state.
I don't think you've shown the depth of wrongness here. It would take a bit more convincing.
> anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state
So, there is a way to the citizens to influence the state? And the state then has to influence or control the company, and then company would change its behavior, because it's forced to. Ok, then why the extra level of indirection, and not just influence the government to not harvest private citizens data and stop there?
> Actually, depriving Apple of the money you'd pay for an iPhone has more impact that your democratic vote.
So someone has to already be wealthy enough to buy iPhones to affect some change. Sure, that could work in some countries/corporations it might not work in others. In a healthier environment citizens should aim to influence their government instead. In the model you're proposing citizens try to influence a corporation by boycotting products, that in turn would indirectly influence the government, so it can then again influence the laws, which influence the corporations? That seems like a less healthy and more convoluted dysfunctional scenario. Certainly possible, one may argue that's what's happening in US or Western Europe, but one can image a better a different scenario than that.