Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seriously sounds to me like you're arguing, "This is how we've always done it..." If so, two things:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

2. In our history as a species, that same (fallacious) argument could have been, and almost certainly was used to support slavery, human sacrifice, and genocide, among other charming and socially redeeming things.

I really couldn't care less whether a particular tribe-of-monkeys behavior has always been around or not. My ethical compass is pretty firmly tuned to one fundamental principle: the net increase in human freedom — freedom of action, and freedom from harm; freedom of expression, and freedom from exploitation. I care whether a particular tribe-of-monkeys behavior serves to benefit one group of monkeys at the expense of another.

To my mind, this one — the concentration of power in the hands of a few, built on the backs of many, which is then used to enact social norms or policy that are often counter to the interests of those many — does.

(Edited)

No one is forced to participate in a corporation. If you like freedom so much, why don't you think people should be free to choose to pool their resources, and to give some of their control of those resources up to the group's leadership?

I explicitly stated that people choose to group together to concentrate power.

The examples given were to counter your specific argument against corporations by showing you that there are many similar organizations that are acceptable concentrations of power.

The rest of your post ignored that context and furiously battled a straw man.

You changed the meaning of 'concentrate'. People don't intend to have their orgs hijacked by their leaders, and some groups have bylaws to prevent that.

And who is to decide the orgs that have the proper bylaws and restrictions and the orgs that don't?