>>>I completely agree that there is a lot injustice to be addressed and I always feel we are not getting our money's worth out of our governments. but I also have low expectations that government is qualified to social engineer solutions to many of these problems. I believe many can be solved, but only by the private sector creating win-win situations where a solution is accepted because it works rather than mandated because "the experts" have decided it is good for us.
>>
>>Unfortunately, most corporations have no interest in 'win-win'. They are only interested in 'win'. What happens on the other side of the hyphen is of no real interest to them.
>>
>
>But if the market is reasonably free that relationship won't be sustainable for the corporation because the other side of the hyphen has a vested interest in changing it.
>
>I agree that the system is imperfect ( sometimes because of the lack of regulation to keep the playing field level, sometimes because of inept - or corrupt - tinkering with regulating the playing field )

So who's supposed to do the regulating to keep the playing field level? If they gov's only job is fix roads?

Do you really think a completely free market would mean a level playing field? Or that the Walmarts, Exxons, etc wouldn't crush any upstart competition? Or are you actually saying that the U.S. should allow complete freedom for countries like China to sell their wares in the U.S.? In that case, it might work, but beware the quality you end up with.

>
>But the point stands that the only relationships that are ultimately sustainable are those where both parties have a vested interest in maintaining them.

Only where both parties are operating from relatively equal levels of strength. A monopoly will always have more power than the consumer.