You are assuming a government is needed for the rich to get so powerful, when it is not. The rich had even greater political power under feudalism, when government was far more symbolic than real, and under weak governments (e.g. the US in the second half of the 19th century). If now significant amounts of political power are mediated through politicians who need to be persuaded, weak or nonexistent governments allow this power to be exerted directly, in pure and unmediated form.
If anything, democratic governments are able to curtail this power somewhat, though obviously not keep it in check entirely. I think that the US is indeed unique in the levels of power it affords the rich precisely because its central government is weaker than in other Western democracies. The freedom companies like Google have in the US is getting closer to direct, pre-government political power, as opposes to modern, mediated political power.
> You are assuming a government is needed, when it is not.
What do you propose as an alternative. We have to somehow prevent Atlanta from pumping away all of Alabama's water no (yes, its a strawman. treat it as such).
If anything, democratic governments are able to curtail this power somewhat, though obviously not keep it in check entirely. I think that the US is indeed unique in the levels of power it affords the rich precisely because its central government is weaker than in other Western democracies. The freedom companies like Google have in the US is getting closer to direct, pre-government political power, as opposes to modern, mediated political power.