Or perhaps Souvik disputes a combination of the two above facts.

Anyway, I'll comment on each of these two facts, given Souvik's
unwillingness to provide more clarity as to what exactly his point was.

That governments around the world operate like a cartel is obvious if
one looks at the fact that in each territory on earth a single
government is in control. Each such government operates on a monopoly
basis. Governments jointly collude to sustain this situation, seeking
to remove possible challenges to that monopoly position. One government
may differ slightly from another, but no government has yet seriously
contemplated competition in areas like military forces.

The similarities between governments are many, not just in the way
military forces are organized, but also in the way science is organized
and in the links between science and the military-industrial complex.
Governments typically take money from people and business by means of
tax and use this to fund scientists, the military, etc.

Science and the military are organized differently than most other
sectors of society. Science and the military are both organized along
the same lines of the monopoly model in each part of the world, i.e. in
each country security services and science are to a large extent
shaped, organized and funded by government. Science is described as a
collection of "discoveries", as if there were universal and absolute
laws of nature that were somehow "discovered" by scientists. This is
only one of the ways scientists are indemnified if things turn out to
go wrong and people get harmed. Scientists habitually hide behind a
cloak of objectivity, seeking indemnity for whatever they work on and
ducking responsibility in many ways.

Universities further claim academic and research independence from
government, in other words regarding the way they decide to spend
money, while professors seek tenure (i.e. they cannot be sacked) and
advocate peer review instead of allocation of money on the basis of
political principles, on the basis of commercial realities and in
compliance with standards that are common elsewhere in society. Within
this framework, the individual scientist bears little or no
responsibility for their work. Universities (as well as other
instituitions within the education system) further indoctrinate
students with the idea that scientists were objective, enforcing this
notion of indemnity and rejecting any notion of liability or
accountibility for whatever they were working on.

This framework is subsequently extended into a
scientific-military-industrial complex where many scientists work and
which is the dominant target for spending of the federal government's
R&D budget. This complex further adds contractual non-disclosure
provisions, official secrecy, armed guards and further tools to prevent
litigation against those who inflict harm within this complex.
Government actively colludes in this scheme, which has resulted in a
monstrosity that indeed holds the world at alrge at ransom, demanding
ever more funding from the people it takes hostage and holds captive.
In the US, indemnity is further extended in that the military cannot be
held accountible before the International Court (in the Hague).

As said, I advocate that the military in the US be split up as a matter
of high urgency, so that there will be competition in security
services. This would take both security services and education out of
the dark ages and bring ity up to scratch regarding values that are
common in other parts of society.

What I advocate is not a fact, it is a political view and one is free
to have a different view. However, I have revealed the facts that my
view is based on, e.g. the way governments typically organize science
and their military forces, that science and their military forces are
largely funded by a single source (i.e. government), while in other
parts of society suppliers are expected to operate with respect for
fair trading principles, responsible and accountible where appropriate
and accepting liability where applicable.

In an epistemological group that looks into knowledge and science, it's
no suprise that anything that sets science apart from other activities
is looked into very closely. You may not like that, but that's what
epistemology does. As a scientist, Souvik may prefer to get into detail
about a certain scientific analysis and he may be brilliant in his
field. However, by failing to grasp the epistemological importance of
issues like this, moreover by showing continued disrespect for the
epistemological approach, Souvik shows that he makes a lousy
epistemologist and this group has little to lose if he leaves. By
repeatedly going into offensive name-calling, he sadly shows to be
unfit to be part of this group.

Cheers!
Sam Carana