[kurikuri]

Except the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people, whereas the company’s motive is either those of the people who control the company or profit.

Even then, if the government is weak than the ‘more power over you’ is simply false. Maybe the magnitude of the power is more for a government, but companies apply their power with much more frequency.

[godelski]

  > the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people

Your conclusion doesn't seem to match your usage of "ostensible". Yes, /democratic/ governments claim to serve its people, but do not necessarily do so. You should always be suspicious and critical of your government in an effort to ensure that the stated goal and actions are aligned. You should always be treating your government as adversarial. In fact, if you read a lot of the writings of people influential to the founding of the US you'll find that they were explicitly trying to design a system where they say its biggest adversary was itself.

But also, there are plenty of governments that do not even pretend to serve its people. They are completely self-serving and transparent about that fact. You never know when one is going to turn into the other but often going from ostensibly benevolent to explicitly malevolent is relatively mild, but gaining back freedom usually requires a lot of bloodshed. There's always exceptions, but this is common. The wort part is that people frequently vote in the malevolent leaders. Democracies can turn into autocracies without spilling a single drop of blood. I'm unaware of the reverse ever happening.

[shakow]

> ostensible

That's a very load-bearing word there.

[dmitrygr]

> the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people

I see your history teachers did a poor job. My condolences.

[theyinwhy]

Personal attacks are not welcome here. Btw, "the apparent motive of the government is to serve its people" still stands even if the government does not serve its people.