Morality as a Plus-Sum Game: Why Libertarianism Fails as a Social Policy

[CrisisPapers]

Ernest Partridge
The Crisis Papers

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but can not do at all or can not do well for themselves in their separate or individual capacities.

Abraham Lincoln

It is written that when Rabbi Hillel (a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth) was asked to recite the essence of The Law of Moses while standing on one foot, he replied: “What is hateful to thyself do not do to another. That is the whole Law, the rest is Commentary.”

After several decades of studying, publishing and teaching moral philosophy, I believe that I can identify the foundation of morality in a single breath: “Morality is a plus-sum game.”

These precepts are not contrary, for they are of differing logical orders. Hillel’s precept is a moral commandment – an ethical rule of conduct. On the other hand, “morality is a plus-sum game” is an account of the foundation of morality; what philosophers call “meta-ethics.”

So just what is the meaning of “morality is a plus-sum game?” While it is easy enough to articulate this question, spelling out an answer might require volumes of elaboration, as indeed it has. But here, at least, are a few initial steps.**

The late American philosopher, John Rawls, explained this principle with admirable clarity when he wrote: "{a}society is a cooperative venture for mutual advantage... Social cooperation makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts." (A Theory of Justice, p. 4).

This insight is by no means original with Rawls. It resounds throughout the history of philosophy and political theory. Moreover, it is proven time and again in the experience of successful civilizations and, conversely, in the decline and fall of other civilizations.

Accordingly, this proven insight clearly explains why a radically individualistic political dogma such as libertarianism is not only immoral, it is empirically unworkable. Any society based upon such a dogma is bound to fail to satisfy the legitimate needs of its citizens.


About Game Theory:

Game theory, which was developed by John von Neuman and Oskar Morgenstern in the forties, “attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends upon the choices of others.” (Wikipedia) (John Nash, portrayed in the movie, “A Beautiful Mind,” won his Nobel Prize in economics for his work in game theory). While game theory can involves some highly advanced mathematical elaborations, the essentials can be readily understood by the ordinary citizen.**

In its most general sense, a “game” is a cooperative, rule-governed and goal-directed activity.

With the rare exception of solitaire, games involve multiple “players:” two individuals (e.g., tennis and chess), two teams (e.g. football), several individuals or teams (e.g. lotteries, tournaments), and entire societies (e.g., governments, morality). If there are two players or teams and the game is designed to result in one winner and one loser, it is called a “zero sum game.” Tennis and chess are zero sum games. If there are multiple players and only one winner, the game designated as “minus sum.” Lotteries and tennis tournaments are minus sum games. Competitive games are either zero-sum or minus-sum. Such games are also “cooperative” in the sense that the players agree to obey the rules.

However, there are other “cooperative, rule-governed, goal oriented” activities in which the players cooperate to produce positive results, i.e. “wins,” for all players. While such activities are generally not called games, they nonetheless fit the definition: “cooperative, rule-governed and goal oriented.”

For example, from the point of view of the teams and the spectators, football is a zero sum game: one team wins and the other loses. But from the point of view of the participating players, it is a plus-sum game: each player interacts with the other team members in a well-coordinated activity which, when well-executed, results in a gain for all the team players that none can accomplish alone, namely, a win.

A freely consummated barter or purchase is a plus-sum game – cooperative, rule governed and goal oriented – in that each participant gains through the transaction. If I have more vehicles than I want and my house is in need of repair, and if my neighbor, a skilled carpenter, needs a car, then a trade of my car for his labor leaves us both better off. For a sale to take place, both the buyer and the seller must perceive a personal advantage in the transaction. Not surprisingly, game theory has attracted the intense interest of economists.

Science is a plus-sum game. It is cooperative: an accumulated accomplishment of millions of working scientists through the centuries. It is rule-governed: following strict rules of inference and evidence, and requirements of publicity, replicability and falsifiability. And it is oriented toward the goal of establishing verifiable truth.

A well-ordered society is also a plus-sum game, whereby capital, labor, education and government function cooperatively according to mutually acknowledged and enforceable rules (i.e., laws and regulations) in pursuit of common goals. These common goals are clearly articulated in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and “the blessings of liberty.”

Each institutional “player” in a successful “plus-sum game” of a just economic/political order needs the cooperative efforts of the other players if that society is to accomplish, in John Rawls’s words, “a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts.”

In contrast, a libertarian (unregulated “free market”) economy is minus-sum game in the extreme: few winners, a great many losers. As we are discovering in the United States today.

Many non-competitive sporting activities are also plus-sum games, including mountain climbing, sailing, and tandem (two person) canoeing, all of which require well coordinated “team play” to achieve a well-defined goal.

A personal example: I am a life-long aficionado of white-water boating (in kayaks and canoes). Well before I acquired much experience and skill in this sport, I persuaded my brother to run a swift Utah river with me in his new canoe. Each of us had independent ideas as to how to maneuver the thing. In short, two captains and no crew. Rock straight ahead? Bow wants to go right, and stern wants to go left. It was a near disaster. As any tandem canoeist will tell you, a successful river run (a plus sum) can only be accomplished with an ability to “read the water” and to execute coordinated paddle strokes according to unambiguous decisions by the designated “captain.” Similarly with successful team climbs and sailing cruises.


The Virtues as Plus-Sum:

Time now to assess my contention that a moral order in society is a plus sum game. Consider the usual roster of moral virtues: honesty, trustworthiness, courage, compassion, charity, loyalty and, perhaps most fundamentally, empathy – the capacity to share another’s joy and to feel another’s pain. Is it not abundantly obvious that the more virtuous the members of a society, the greater the plus-sum “payoffs” of social life? Economic transactions would be conducted with full knowledge and confidence, with no “inefficient” losses due to default, deceptive advertising, or fraudulent contracts. Marriages would be secure and enduring. Government officials could be expected to serve their constituents, free of bribery and corruption. In a community of optimally trustworthy, compassionate, tolerant and generous individuals, there would be no need to invest community resources in police, criminal courts and prisons.

Such a consideration led James Madison to conclude that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” (The Federalist, 51). Regarding the codification and enforcement of criminal law, Madison was no doubt correct. Even so, his pronouncement is an overstatement, for even in a society of angels, some government would be necessary. For example, there would have to be traffic laws, no matter how virtuous the drivers, if traffic were to move safely and efficiently. Once the traffic lights fail, the freedom to move is obliterated in the resulting chaos. In general, if a game is to be played successfully – including the “game” of economic/political activity – the players must know the rules, even if there is total assurance that no one will cheat and thus there is no need whatever to enforce the rules with the threat of penalties.

There are, to be sure, some traditional “virtues” that contribute little to the mutual advantages of community life. David Hume called these “the monkish virtues,” and they include celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, silence and solitude. Of these, Hume observed: “they serve to no manner of purpose; neither advance a man’s fortune in the world, nor render him a more valuable member of society...” (Enquiry Concerning Morals, IX:1) With Hume, I conclude that these traits scarcely qualify a “virtues” at all, but rather are the consequences of “superstition and false religion.”


The Vices as Minus-Sum:

In contrast, moral vices subvert and stifle the mutual advantages of social life, which, I contend, is precisely why they are vices. Foremost among these are pride, cruelty, ruthlessness, hatred, prejudice, dishonesty, selfishness, greed. Add to these “an absence of empathy” which, as I have argued elsewhere, may be the most fundamental of the vices.

Each of these vices shred the fabric of an orderly society, as they make cooperation impossible or even counter-productive, as they undermine rules, and as they subvert the pursuit of common goals. In a society of liars, contracts can not be made. When prejudice and hatred prevail, all citizens can not be equal before the law. A representative republic can not endure if public officials can not be trusted. And an ideology that prizes selfishness and greed cannot be the foundation of a flourishing economic/political system.


The Inevitable Failure of Libertarianism as a Social Theory:

I most emphatically do not wish to suggest that libertarians are wicked people. Many libertarians that I know personally, and others that I know by reputation, are as tolerant, unbiased, generous and charitable as any liberal, and even more so than some liberals of my acquaintance. Some libertarians are so tolerant that they invite me and other liberals to publish in their journals and participate in their conferences.

However, as libertarians, they believe that the promotion of these virtues is no business of the government. Charity and tolerance, they insist, are and must remain, private virtues. To the libertarian, a voluntary contribution to the poor or to a school, museum or park is morally commendable. But taxation in support of welfare, education, museums and parks is theft. As for cruelty, ruthlessness and dishonesty, these vices are regarded by the libertarians as self-defeating and, when exposed in practice, these vices fail in a free market and in the unregulated association of free individuals. Any vices that constrain the fundamental “negative” rights life, liberty and property, can legitimately be sanctioned and punished by the “minimalist” libertarian government.

Even so, despite any private virtues of individual libertarians, as a public political philosophy libertarianism is morally inadequate. In practice, it will produce minus-sum consequences.

Consider once again, our criteria of a plus-sum game: a cooperative, rule-governed, goal directed activity aimed toward accomplishing mutual advantage.

Libertarian doctrine drops the cooperation criterion of gamesmanship in favor of “YOYO” – "you’re on your own." The libertarian dogma of “the invisible hand” decrees that a collection of self-serving individuals seeking only to maximize their own personal freedom and wealth, will somehow, by “spontaneous generation,” evolve into an optimum social arrangement. No explicit rules and regulations are required apart from those laws designed to achieve the goal of the protection of the lives, liberties and property of each individual.

It is a neat and simple belief system which, unfortunately, neither history nor practical experience will validate. Instead, history has taught us that when a society officially embraces what Ayn Rand calls “the virtue of selfishness” and greed becomes the controlling force in community life, wealth and power do not “trickle down” to the masses, they “percolate up” to those in control, leaving those masses impoverished and disenfranchised. Government, having been “drowned in a bathtub,” offers no relief to the oppressed. “The free market” and “competitive enterprise,” extolled by the libertarians in theory, are set aside in practice. The prevailing capitalists regard competition as inefficient and inconvenient, and still worse, the constant competitive pressure to improve and innovate erodes profits. Hence mergers and acquisitions. Say goodbye to Mom and Pop stores and Downtown, USA. Say hello to Wall-Mart, Costco and Home Depot. Say goodbye to a free and diverse media. Say hello to the new “Ministry of Truth:” six media mega-corporations in control of 80% of the nation’s media, spewing out the official doctrines of “the free market” and “government is the problem.”

How, then, are diversity, free markets and competition to be preserved? How else than through the intervention of anti-trust laws, which means an activist government, which, of course, is anathema to the libertarian.

The eventual result? “Life, liberty and property” for the privileged few, with poverty and servitude for all the rest. A minus-sum game.

“You are on your own” does not work with tandem canoeing, nor with a social order. Without cooperative effort, without commonly acknowledged rules sanctioned and enforced by law, and without shared goals, a society cannot succeed.


Liberty and Autonomy in a Plus-Sum Society.

“What you are describing,” replies the libertarian, “is the ‘order’ of bee hive or of an ant colony. Pure communism. Not a place where I would want to live. How can personal liberty an autonomy thrive in your ‘cooperative venture for mutual advantage’?”

A wise answer was told to me by a Russian friend, a professor at Moscow University, during the “cowboy capitalism” days following the collapse of Soviet communism. “Under communism,” she observed, “we had order without freedom. Then we had freedom without order, only to discover that without order, there is no freedom.”

The libertarian and the liberal concur in their desire to maximize personal liberty. However, the libertarian advocates freedom without order – without, that is, an institutional structure that will ensure freedom for all. Absent such a structure, liberty, like wealth, will “percolate up” to those in charge, “with liberty for some," leaving the masses with nothing but their squalor and oppression.

The liberal, on the other hand, strives to establish and maintain the social, economic and political order without which there is no freedom. The liberal understands that the economic output and the civil liberties of a society are the products of the joint contributions of all members of society – of the plus-sum cooperative, rule governed and goal oriented efforts of all. Because no social order operates without some “friction,” there are inevitably victims of social and economic misfortune: the unemployed, the bankrupt, the abandoned. Add to these, the victims of natural misfortunes – accidents, disease, birth defects, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc.

Voluntary charity to these unfortunates, as advocated by the libertarians, is commendable. But it is insufficient. Good for the souls of the charitable, but not very helpful to those in need. There are just too many of them. Moreover, voluntary charity is a “tax on virtue,” as are private donations to education, museums, libraries, concerts and parks. Most citizens correctly reflect, “I might contribute, but even if I do, my one contribution will not abolish poverty and ignorance, nor will it add significantly to civic excellence.” To accomplish these common benefits, all must contribute through taxes. And with this understanding, most enlightened citizens will pay their taxes willingly, as they likewise support legislation designed to relieve suffering and to promote the common good.

"Taxes," wrote Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, "are the price we pay for civilization" -- the very civilization that is prerequisite to any and all personal wealth. Accordingly, it is not unjust to require the beneficiaries of civilization to share in the burden of its maintenance. However, there may be justifiable reasons to complain about the distribution of this burden.

“Necessitous men are not free men,” FDR observed in 1936. The liberal realizes, as the libertarian does not, that if personal liberty is to be maximized in society, it is not enough merely to guarantee the life, liberty and property of each individual.

The social contract of a just community also requires that if the citizens are to enjoy “the blessings of liberty,” the pre-conditions of liberty must be attended to: namely, public education, economic opportunity, equal opportunity, the protection of common resources, and the promotion of civic institutions.

As the English conservative, Edmund Burke observed:

a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born.

Copyright 2010 by Ernest Partridge


**For more about game theory and the "plus-sum" nature of a just society, see Chapter 5 ("Good for Each, Bad for All") and Chapter 6 ("The Moral Point of View") of my book in progress, Conscience of a Progressive.

[Demeter]

1. I Feel Like Diogenes

Where are the Boomer men who understand this, and work toward the common good?

Having divorced one psychopath, and looking for a real husband over the years since, I have found too much Libertarian attitude to even consider taking a second chance.

The good ones are married or gay?

It is the culture: that rugged individual, don't tread on me, I got mine, treat people like dirt, especially women and children, FU attitude, screw over your nearest and dearest for personal gain and promotion. Funny thing is, when you go down that path, your nearest and dearest are suddenly distant and disaffected.

Women understand from pregnancy onward that they can't go it alone, and reach out for help and to help.

Men box themselves into unworkable dead ends in personality and social connectivity. God help the woman who tries to pry a man out of a dead end, out of a sense of charity or lust or just plain optimism. If you are unwilling to give of yourself, you can't expect to be on the receiving end more than once.

[srf Rantz]

2. right here

www.stanfrantz.com

I've spent my entire life wondering what drives the "psychopaths". I just don't get it.

On the other hand I was told all my life, "you just don't have any ambition" to which I would reply "so?" (and incidentally women would run for the nearest exit ;-) having been biologically and socially programmed to "desire" a man who could "provide" for them, but let's not go there shall we?)

back to the OP.

this is important. this is the MOST IMPORTANT thing to do. to clearly articulate this concept of society.

billionaires like the Koch brothers, have been spending their billions to literally change the culture to a Randian perspective and have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

A community oriented perspective such as so clearly described in this article, which in my youth was almost universally accepted and desired, has now been demonized into near-obscurity and is beaten down in some kind of perverse game of whack-a-mole whenever it even attempts to be expressed in any broader context. This is the function of Glenn Beck et al.

It will take a super-human effort to overcome the deficit of cultural advantage now enjoyed by "the other side."

or more likely, the complete collapse of our society and economy, followed by seemingly endless war, devastation and finally some sort of rebirth of the desire for mutual cooperation and peace.

which will sadly be all too brief as the cycle repeats endlessly.

or we just eventually blow the fucking planet to bits.

[AlbertCat]

10. Men box themselves into unworkable dead ends in personality and social connectivity.

The gay ones too?

Well, y'know.... women are too touchy-feelly and hysterical anyway!

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, CrisisPapers.:thumbsup:

[Autonomy]

4. Thanks for another great post

The traditional view of morality is that it is "moral" because it restricts behavior that impedes the autonomy of another. I consider an evolutionary development of concepts in a burgeoning human society, and come to the conclusion that "morality" is merely 'behavior that is competitively advantageous' in a collective sense. IOW, the "plus-sum game" to which you're referring.

K&R&saved.

[dchill]

5. A true, pure libertarian is someone you have never met.

Simply because he, by definition, doesn't need you. If "You're on your own," then so is he, right? And, of course, a real Libertarian won't sign up for Social Security or Medicare, either. Right?

[starroute]

6. I've got to defend the "monkish" virtues, though

Call them the "shamanistic" virtues and they make a lot more sense.

Celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, silence and solitude are no way to run a society. But on a short-term basis, abstaining from sex, fasting, silence, and solitude are a pretty good recipe for a vision quest -- and that, in turn, can often be the source of insight into a new non-zero-sum game, whether it's agriculture or making peace with the neighboring tribe.

And even penance, mortification, and self-denial are a traditional means of recognizing and acknowledging your own flaws -- which is to say your own personal zero-sum games -- and resolving to do something about them, both in your own life and as reflected in the larger society.

It's only when they become a form of empty self-punishment, in the face of a society that resists actual change and is likely to burn you at the stake as a heretic if you speak up, that they become hollow. But that's always the problem when you replace shamans (to whom everyone has to pay attention) with monks (who can be safely shut up and ignored.)

As far as the rest, though, I'd say you're right on. Can we have some Libertarianism=Fail bumper stickers printed up?

[smltwnhokie]

7. a little black and white

I consider myself a libertarian and I have to disagree with this article. First off, the author seems to equate libertarianism with anarchy, like the lawlessness of the USSR collapse. I can't speak for everybody, but libertarians aren't opposed to laws and taxes that provide a safe and efficient country to live our lives as we please. We're not unreasonable penny pinching mizers or anything. Then, he paints a rosy, idealistic, picture of liberal ideology of how everybody has to work together and support one another as we skip off into the sunset. Ok, honestly I think a society like that would be great, BUT the world isn't perfect and neither are people. Let's face it, many people have lazy inclinations and will take whatever they can get. You can see how welfare creates dependency and incentives to not work in America and still manage to fail because they don't manage their money well or try to pull themselves up. Libertarians feel so strongly about personal responsibility because we don't feel like we should be required to support those who won't help themselves. Those that can't though are a different story, and even though that's where it begins it just spirals out of control.

The author also likened capitalism to a few obscenely rich people surrounded by impoverished, suppressed masses. I mean, look around! America didn't get great that way. The decades of pursing the American Dream were a huge success. Where do you think the middle class came from? I agree that larger than life mega corporations are dangerous, but that's not the majority of capitalism. Fact: 50% of non agriculture private GDP comes from small businesses, and a small business has less than 500 employees. These aren't ruthless, evil slave drivers. They create jobs and allow other people to have a decent living as well. Another problem with a liberal utopia is that ideally, you'd want nobody to be rich and nobody to be poor right? But do you realize the message this sends out? Risk taking entrepreneurs who dream of being wealthly and self sufficient won't try anymore if they know they're going to fork over half of their hard earned money to support someone else who works at wal mart and has 6 kids...same with professionals that have to go through 8 years of higher education. Where's the incentive if they're not going to be noticeably better off than most? How many people really become a surgeon just to save lives? Or if that is the reason, they'd be able to move to a country that pays better, leaving us worse off as we experience a brain drain. That's why America used to attract so many smart, talented people. They knew America offered great potential for advancement. So under your system of cooperation, support and taxes, we'll have a larger group of people who won't have to work much and a smaller group of people who will actually get out, innovate, and save lives because there's little incentive. It'll create stagnation.

One thing about rules and regulations, libertarians are of the mindset that they should be kept to the minimum of ensuring safety and personal freedom. My dad operates a freezer building for what used to be the fishing industry. Over the past decade his business has shrunk by half, all from new regulations or government intervention on the global scale. They put people out of business. I forgot who it was, but some past president said something about loving foreign policy and that he didn't worry about domestic policy because it basically sorts itself out.

Well, that's my conservative economic viewpoint. My social one involves gay marriage, legalized pot, lower drinking age, no god, and abortions. =)

[AlbertCat]

11. First off, the author seems to equate libertarianism with anarchy,

Because it is.


Ok, honestly I think a society like that would be great, BUT the world isn't perfect and neither are people.

Which is exactly why Libertarianism doesn't work.

[smltwnhokie]

15. not really

No, libertarianism is the advocacy of limited government. Anarchy is the desire for no government. Very big difference.

Ok, so you claim libertarianism doesn't work because of my example that the world isn't perfect and neither are people yet you don't deny my claim that that's why your philosophy doesn't work....interesting.

[D-Lee]

8. WOW! Really helpful way to understand moral paucity (IMHO)

of the anti-government perspective ..

Thanks.

[nashville_brook]

9. this is one of the most inspiring posts i've read on DU...

read it yesterday at lunch. the fiance read it yesterday at work, too. we hadn't mentioned it each other, but came home with heads full of tangential ideas...got into a discussion that pondered the primacy of empathy in human civilization.

how naked is it that the GOP attacked "empathy" during the Sotomayor confirmation? and, that beck attacks "social justice"? how enslaved must one's mind be to openly criticize empathy and caring? how much koolaid does it take? it's so outside of my reality construct that i wonder if these people aren't different genetically. some switch in their DNA must have been flipped that has short-circuited their empathy gland. empathy, caring and rooting for social justice are as primal as breathing to me. i couldn't turn it off if i tried. which begs the question again -- what happened to these people? they are broken.

[dhpgetsit]

12. The best essay I have read in a very long time!

K&R

[depakid]

13. Libertarianism as a social policy leads to fuedalism through private capital

not unlike the robber barons of the Gilded Age. In the absence of responsible government regulation guided by a social contract, societies will self organize into hierarchies based on wealth that distribute rights and privileges- and allocate scarce resources according to their own arbitrary and capricious rules.

This leads to leads to conditions quite inimical to the libertarian's professed beliefs and values- which, while under a different guise, have the same limiting effects on their own freedoms- but with fewer and less effective means to redress grievances and abuse.

Going back to game theory, it also leads to multiple n player prisoner's dilemmas, akin to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons.

All in all, Libertarianism is a fools errand- touted by those with stunted moral reasoning (see: http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm">Kohlberg's stages of moral development).

[smltwnhokie]

14. my reasoning isn't stunted by Kohlberg's standards...

Everything he said deals with democratic process, justice, individual rights and liberty, and obeying laws. You really think libertarians don't agree with that? One of the basic foundations of a libertarian is freedom as long as it doesn't impede anyone else's freedom. That's what government is for, to allow a peaceful society to function. The extent of it's influence can be argued, but generally, yes, we believe it doesn't need to be nearly as bloated and extensive as it is now.

[depakid]

16. Apparently you don't grasp (or refuse to accept)

1. That libertarianism inevitably leads to feudal organization of society- and multiple iteration n player prisoners dilemmas (think fishery externization of costs and tragedy of the commons situations).

2. Kolberg's stages (precoventional levels of moral development typify the Libertarian's reasoning process). One can see this even in highly educated people- a rejection of a broad social contract (communitarianism) coupled with unbridled faith in unrestrained "free" markets (which ironically, their own philosophy of "rugged individualism" destroys).

[smltwnhokie]

17. ok

1. I can see how that could happen, but I personally don't advocate extreme libertarianism and seriously doubt our society could ever reach that far to the right so I'm not even worried about it.

2. I think that part is more implied as his actual stages deal with the moral equality of others and its implications. A desire for equal treatment of fellow men and embracing everybody as community is different though...maybe I just missed the connection in the paper. But yeah, I'd agree that libertarians believe people should watch out for their family and friends; the people in their life that matters. Other people can worry about themselves. I guess it really depends on how you view the world and if you embrace humanity, because honestly I hate humanity as much as I love it which creates very bipolar feelings towards the goodwill of mankind. I think most everyone would agree it's good to help people though, but libertarians want it to be a voluntary act.

[theFrankFactor]

18. You Unfortunately Can Not Convince a Libertarian of Anything...

that demotes their idiotic view of humanity and society. We have a representative democracy with some archaic hold overs but the problem is not the government its the people. It is an asinine ideology birthed by egocentric sociopaths. Every robber baron's dream and an unwitting ally to corporate fascism.

[smltwnhokie]

19. could say the same about you

If you didn't notice, I acknowledged the legitimacy of depakid's response and did gain something from it. I think corporate fascism is a problem too but your Democratic party isn't helping it any. And hell, they don't need any help being fascists. A few more takeovers and they'll basically completely control or own the economy, living like kings while we're all equally poor.

[nashville_brook]

20. will the invisible hand of the free market rid us of corporate fascism?

[smltwnhokie]

21. No I don't think it will but...

It would allow crooks that are "too big to fail" to fail and be replaced with something better. Really, I don't have much of a problem with corporations themselves. My problem is the political power they wield. I think this could be prevented if corporate big wigs weren't able to become elected officials or have important positions in government agencies, government representatives weren't able to become lobbyists, and if corporations could in no way donate to political causes and the same for accepting said money. Government and big business need to remain separated because they're able to do things they shouldn't because the gov's in bed with them, both sides.

If you have a problem with corporations b/c you see them "keeping the little guy down" or something then I have nothing to say. I think many people working for corporations are happy where they're at and are treated well. Just today we had a speaker from Coca Cola and he stressed how it's important to treat employees well and offer good benefits b/c it attracts talent and people stay longer. It's much more efficient to keep a good employee happy and spend more on them then having a high turnover rate.

[Beartracks]

22. Aw, too late to rec. But I'll gladly kick.

Very insightful.

------------------------