You make many fair criticisms.

It's true organizations are composed of individuals, but I can distinguish my positive overall experience with Costco from occasional negative experiences with individual Costco employees having a bad day. I can laugh with a friendly clerk at the DMV while hating the DMV experience. As individuals, we interact with others as individuals, and also as representatives of larger bodies. I don't see this as a big source of confusion.

The point about TV villians is silly. Maybe Huemer selectively remembers being triggered by heroic presidents played by Harrison Ford, and forgets about the heroic CEOs in ... some other movies I can't remember either.

So if an individual finesses the fuck out of you but you get something out of the transaction, they're an asshole, but when a corporation does it, it's good.

I'm not sure what you mean by "getting something" here. When you interact with an individual, you might get an insult or a complement, who knows. People are capricious. Huemer argues that corporations have brand reputation to worry about. They make efforts to consistently polish their reputation for good service. Corportations that do poorly at this tend to lose customers and lose business. Heck, corporations that do a half-decent job of customer service go out of business because other corporations really excel.

This kind of feedback doesn't really exist for individuals; people can be jerks, yet see themselves as angels or victims, and live their whole lives dragging others into their misery.

"Sometimes, you see an irate and unreasonable customer loudly berating an employee of some business over the business’ perceived failure. The employee generally listens patiently and tries to fix the problem."

Is this not your experience? Do you agree that the response would likely be very different with a law enforcement officer? You asked if I have seen the police escort someone out of a business. Sure, people tend to be more docile with police, and if they're not the consequences escalate quickly. Do you not prefer interacting with employees over the law?

Peter Singer and the Centre for Effective Altruism

If you have a good response to Singer I would love to hear it. I have donated about 0.05% of my net worth to the Against Malaria Foundation, and I can't prove that such a paltry amount saved any lives. But after seeing and hearing that damn story about the drowning child so many times, I can't find a way to be comfortable spending a thousand dollars on a cell phone.

Once again, I am surprised to find Hubski expressing the allegedly libertarian trope that we have no responsibility to worry about the welfare of others. This time because suffering is not sufficiently quantifiable? If you think it's a bad idea to try and direct money toward causes that appear most likely to relieve suffering, I would like to understand why.

They have literally all that shit.

Fair, the government has customer service numbers and workers who try to resolve complaints. Perhaps a more charitable interpretation is that the government doesn't have as much at stake when trying to please us "customers." We don't have an alternative place to register cars, so if you do run into trouble you're out of luck.

This philosophy bro has never read jack shit on the concept of the nation state.

In fact, he wrote a book on the concept.

Okay, so now what happens when another organization such as another government decides to invade your fucking country?

That's a great question. His position is outlined in Chapter 12.

It's not completely satisfying. Getting invaded by a foreign government is very bad, and our strategy of building even more bombs than the other governments seems less than ideal. A national military is no guarantee either; plenty of countries get invaded despite having militaries. I don't count it as a huge defect that Huemer has not solved war.

I'm not sure how a private police force is supposed to mitigate this. Remember a democracy at least gives people equal right to vote. Individuals do not have equal amounts of money.

I'm not sure either, but I have some ideas.

People may have an equal right to vote, but half do not find doing so worthwhile. People who can't afford lobbyists or activism might find it difficult to catch the ear of elected officials, but corporations are happy to offer them the same gasoline, shoes, and food that they offer to anyone else.