This is the kind of two-dimensional thinking that's part of the problem.

That's funny, Tom. You're such a card.

We both seem to agree that it isn't a good thing the way big business has corrupted our government. But I have to wonder whose side you're on when your solution consists simply of surrender and handing over the keys of government to the people doing the corrupting.

What in the world makes you think that what big business wants is simply the absence of regulation? What's even better is to get the government on your side to rig the playing field to disadvantage the competition. Has a business ever objected to tarrifs that keep out the competition? Don't phone and cable and utility companies prefer the security of government-granted monopolies to open competition? If a business would be crazy to turn down one of those lucrative tax-break deals meant to entice business into a town, why would it be crazy to take the initiative and exert influence on the government to be granted a place at the trough? You expect business to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

It's so transparent that what Republicans mean when they demand that government withdraw from the marketplace is that they want the government to stop taking the consumer and worker's side, with those bothersome truth-in-advertising laws, pesky product labelling and disclosure requirements, health and safety inspections, minimum wage and workplace safety standards, health care beyond the minimum that keeps the organic machines running and profitable, recourse in the courts for injury and fraud; you think pharmaceutical firms really weep over lengthy FDA approval programs that raise the barrier to entry and shut out the competition?...if the government would just get out of the way, big business could most efficiently manage our lives to maximize our profit potential. It's government that keeps business from fully monetizing us.

If Republicans get their way, we'll be locked into an oh-so-enlightened and comfortable serfdom with our lives controlled by others, and government will become just another arena of competition among businesses, serving their needs and not those of the people.

The Constitution doesn't say "We the Multinational Corporations...", Tom, it says "We the People."

I'm curious, too, how you reconcile the rugged individualism of Libertarianism with the corporatism of Republicans. There's no place for individualistic Libertarians in the world of business...you're the guys always talking about being the nimble mammals who will bring down those old dinosaurs. You've declared yourselves the enemies of the powers-that-be. Looks like the Republicans did a wicked clever job of neutering Libertarians by coopting them.

My proposal about limiting the size of corporations was more than a little tongue-in-cheek, but I was hoping you'd come back with something more substantive. I was trying to illustrate that over 200 years we've reached a rough balance between public and private power, and that if we want to alter the situation, we have to do it carefully with both sides standing down in equal measure. It's no different from disarmament: Nobody will go first and be put at a disadvantage, the only way it can be done is through simultaneous standdown. Disarming only one side will have dramatic and surely negative consequences. The Founders wanted checks-and-balances and decentralized power; the last thing they would want is for the government to be controlled by a small wealthy elite.

It's a bit of two-dimensional thinking to predict that limiting the size of corporations would only increase the size of government. There would be tradeoffs, and the results would be cumulative over time as the government's priorities change as the balance of power changes. Breaking economic power into smaller chunks would reduce the power of business to demand pork and special tax breaks and other governmental manna. When it comes to government corruption, you look at supply, I look at demand; I say you can't reduce the supply when the demand side has the power to order more at will. There are two ways to starve the beast, and I think reducing demand is more powerful; like a drug war, you can never win by attacking supply alone, and as long as there's a market--for drugs or power--there will be a supply.

There'd be greater governmental expenditures in certain areas if corporate size were limited. It's certainly more efficient for the IRS to collect one tax return from IBM than from a hundred mini-IBMs. But somewhat negating that problem is the technology we now enjoy that makes it relatively cheap to process large amounts of paperwork. There'd need to be an increase in antitrust enforcement to make the size limit stick, and to prevent behind-the-scenes collusion between colleagues who once worked together. No denying that that would be gnarly.

Whatever, I just tossed out that somewhat whacky idea to provoke discussion, and maybe negotiation. Your demand for a unilateral abdication of government oversight's a nonstarter, but maybe we can work something out if you're willing to concede something. That gun-to-the-head Republican style was never all that effective, and now that time's running out in Washington, time for you guys to learn to talk to your fellow Americans instead of always twisting our arms.