Dystopic corporations still exist to make profit in order to survive, if they choose to become states, they start financing themselves by taking away goods produced others in the name of the 'common good'. Corporations also have no 'mythic creation legend' like the state does, them trying to justify their rule of terror will be harder. Eventually the more conscious the people become, the harder it is for states to do arbitrarily whatever they wantonly desire.
States are more or less accepted by a majority as 'necessary evils', how would your dystopic mega-corporations enjoy the same benefit?
Only by allowing fiercely free competition to exist will we prevent such 'too-big-to-fail' corporations to exist. Remember, there are no eternal corporations. They all just exist to make profits on the short run, for there can be no profits on the long run. They have to evolve or wither and die. The state do not face same amount of competition, they do not suffer from the whims of the consumer.
Basic worker right laws are a fine idea, but where do you put the fence between 'right' and 'privilege'? Who decides where one definition ends and the other begins?
Min wages are also not not necessary, I'm not going to talk more about them here, check OT for current debates concerning this issue.
Again, you may value some 'privilege' to be greater than the lost amount of benefit, others have different preferences. Whose preferences prevail, who pays the cost?
Ad agencies can only influence as much as the human wants to be influenced. Someone who hates cars will not buy a car after seeing a car ad. But someone who likes a car, and has not yet decided between several options, might be influenced by the ad. They are not omnipotent creations changing human desires from A to B.
The concept of sin is a silly one. Person C does not like what person D is doing, therefore calls the actions of D sinful. It's all about preferences and what some find acceptable, others find not. Some would say it is a sin to go swim naked, others find it perfectly normal. Mankind just wants to stay alive, procreate and maximize their utility. As long as these progresses do not hamper the welfare of others, none of the actions can be truly 'sinful', and even then, it is a subjective opinion.
But you still want to fund a system where half of the population of a country is working for government, moving papers around, creating laws no one ever reads, living off the real goods the private sector produces, financing it all by printing money (which destroys private wealth even more)... just because you think the other possible alternatives are even worse.
I do not like terrorist, or military rule. But there can be better forms of society than what we currently are facing, even a benevolent monarchy would be better. That is why some libertarians have come to support monarchies over the current democratic systems, having witnessed the terror of majority rule and the financial consequences.
The main argument however is, why allow a cancerous state exist and hamper the economy, when all would work well enough without the state leeching off of common people?
If not outright anarchy, consider minarchy a possible form of society.
A company would only do that by destroying competition with use of violent force, become a monopoly, and thus just become a state. But if people do not approve of states, know they are useless and evil, what keeps this new state in power? Reign of terror? The people will tolerate than only for a while, the tyrannies are always bound to fail. The more liberty of the individual is suppressed, the harder the revolution will erupt. History has shown us that no reign of terror is bound to last forever.
There will be another hotel service, if there is competition. And competition usually exists, unless prevented by force. (by government)
You are not far from truth. The states begun as household for the ruling class, first administering the financial needs of the sovereign. The more fun the sovereign wanted to have, the more power, the more wars he wanted to fight, the more the state grew. The more he wanted to secure his rule, the more to silence the opposition, the more secure his power, the more propaganda was invented (such as nationalism). The state in itself is the ultimate evil corporation, and I'm glad you have arrived at this result.
It does not produce welfare, it does not create happiness. It can just take away goods produced by others, and redistribute them.