>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>No, I think the government - or at least the law - provides an essential function in keeping the playing field level. That's a reasonable role for government and it is good for capitalism.
>>>
>>>When laws are just and enforced fairly it gives people confidence to invest and take risks.
>>>
>>>I think the important point that at its best our system will provide equality of opportunity. I think when it over-reaches is when it thinks there is some way to legally create equality of outcome. Attempts to do that usually involve tilting the playing field in some way and the intended result is rarely accomplished.
>>>
>>>I came of age at a time ( the Great Society ) when the best and the brightest wanted to go into government so we could fix things. We believed the bigger and more powerful government was, and the more it was staffed with bright, well intentioned people like us ( I worked in Bobby Kennedy's campaign, for heaven's sake ), the better off for all those people we knew better than. They didn't always know what was good for them, but we did. (I'm not talking about fighting injustice - the inequality that made the playing field decidedly unlevel. That was the proudest chapter of the 60s ) We really saw no irony in "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
>>>
>>>Seeing the results of much of that, I have concluded that the mechanism of society is too complex to social engineer - but that there is a lot to be said for the idea that given a fair environment, individuals are empowered to do more than could be imagined in a college classroom, simply because it is in their best interests to do it.
>>>
>>>A completely free market would not work any more than the internet would survive without protocols or national railroads run without agreement on gauge. No one proposes that. But there is a point at which government that has too much power to put its thumb on the scales becomes simply another lever to be manipulated and therefore don't accomplish the outcome the politicians claim they are going after ( some sincerely - and some because that's what they're paid to say )
>>>
>>>I fully realize that the small government argument is often a mask for exploiters who seek freedom to exploit the weak and powerless. But that manipulation is exactly the kind of thing that government should be controlling.
>>>
>>>And big government is often the refuge of those who seek power by lying to people telling them they can fix things that they are smart enough to know they can't ( or dumb enough to have bought into their own demagoguery )
>>>
>>>It's a tough balance, but hey, freedom isn't for sissies <g>
>>
>>I guess I'm just a little unclear on the 'how' of it all. How does a government which you have clearly stated is incompetent to legislate a level playing field, legislate a level playing field? If not legislation, then what? government really doesn't have much power other than to legislate.
>
>I don't think I said government is ( or at least should be ) incompetant to legislate a level playing field - only incompetant to legislate a tie score. Equality of opportunity is a worthy goal. Equality of outcome is neither possible nor, perhaps, desirable.
>
>If anti-trust legislation is used to penalize the successful after the less successful have decided it is cheaper to buy judges than to invest in better business methods, the system is abused.

We have a system right now where without anti-trust legislation, we will be faced, in very little time, with a very few monopolies. How can that be a good thing? The big fish swallows the little fish. That may be acceptable in a human terms in a Darwinian system where smarts can work in the little fish's favour, but in an economic system, it becomes little more than a path to megalopolies (I may have just invented that word. I'm not sure). In a corporate system, if the big fish sees a smarter little fish, the big fish just applies various pressures (including buyout) to simply get rid of the little fish.

MOst of us are not happy with the OPEC consortium (which would probably be illegal here), but you seem to be saying it's ok.

I just don't understand the part about the gov legislating a level playing field without tinkering with the system. Are you advocating dumping anti-trust legislation?

>
>If the government "decrees" that 2+2= 4 or 5 so people who have difficulty in math don't feel 'marginalized' it is not particularly a good outcome. ( there is a story - probably apocryphal - that the Indian state legislature once considered a bill to make pi = 3 in order to make math easier for students. )
>
>But there is a limit to what legislative remedy can do. Contracts can be enforced, but if someone contractually does something stupid and then expects to be rescued they are asking for a tilt of the table by the government.

Unfortunately, the major players do this all the time. Governments are filled with corrupt people, and probably always will be.

>
>In sports, you don't allow the refs to fiddle the rules to make the game closer. But in government people are always proposing the government legislate remedies that will guarantee equal outcome. However well meaning, most of those efforts suffer from the hubris that we actually know how to tinker with mechanisms that are too complex to be adjusted with ham-handed solutions.
>
>Then more tinkering is needed to fix the fix and so on.
>
>The best stuff that came out of the Great Society resulted in tearing down legal barriers to equality - the Voting Rights act for example. But the stuff that didn't work - court ordered busing for example - was certainly well-intended but tried to accomplish something by fiat that had unintended consequences ( the destruction of many inner cities )

How would you go about 'tearing down the barriers' to competition, while still allowing a situation in which a small upstart company could survive (assuming you actually have done away with the barriers to allowing successful companies to pretty much do as they please (not counting criminal activities) in order to grow).