The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.
There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.
Microsoft.
Intellectual property law is a subsidy for Microsoft's business model of selling copies of a non-scarce resource.
This is of course on top of the government's recognition of Microsoft as some special entity that can do things individuals or groups of unrecognized individuals cannot.
Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons:
1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it.
2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance.
3) As for the
There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.
The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly.
4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw.