I agree. I wonder if part of the artistic intention here—the provocation—was to draw parallels.

I, for one, feel a lot of ick at the foundational functions of both systems. Icky stuff, it’s got to be done (or does it?), it’s never pleasant or unambiguous, it brings out (and rewards) perverse behaviors, it demands tradeoffs that exploit power asymmetries, it exists partly to preserve and empower the actor in the position of strength, the decisions have high stakes for individual supplicants but the system itself is indifferent...

And both seem to try and slather lipstick on their ick by way of ever-thicker layers of bureaucratic (and often self-contradictory) “tweaks,” in successive attempts to correct for past icky outcomes, even though at the bottom, the ick is really inextricable from the basic nature of the enterprise…

I agree that an individual family’s fate at the hands of a government (especially in border conditions, where its monopoly on violence looms so concretely) feels to me much more morally weighty than the life or death of somebody’s, you know, get-rich-quick business enterprise. But I also wonder if part of the parallel being drawn here is to point at the way the whole “startup” system functions by making it feel totalizing and weighty to individually-mostly-powerless participants. (Who, like others feeling the desperation of totalizing stakes, frequently do desperate and damaging and morally corrosive things to improve their odds in front of the bureaucratic judge…)