I come to somewhat different conclusions based on the evidence. What a surprise, eh?

I agree that business pays government protection money, and money to get special favors. But that's only part of it. It also pays money to try and get relief from restrictions that are in the public interest but cut into profit--antitrust laws that protect free markets, inspection and safety rules that protect the public, protection from the consequences of their mistakes and misdeeds (lawsuits), and on and on. I know you Rightists dismiss all those things as meritless government interference, but I believe that while that's sometimes true, more often than not it's genuinely in the public interest.

My favorite example is food inspection. Do you own a home botulism testing kit, Tom? No? I'd still feel it would be safe to have dinner at your house because you're buying food that's been inspected by the government. We the people have the government hire experts to do what we can't, or what wouldn't be economically efficient to do on an individual basis. It's benign, and beneficial, and a legitimate role for government.

This year's news about Enron and Tyco and Imron and WorldCom should tell you that 100% laissez-faire capitalism is as unrealistic a utopian idea as pure communism. Capitalism and a free market economy require adult supervision to preserve them.

So when you say:

Unless government is stripped of the powers to influence the private sector to the extent it does, I see no way this will ever change.


I see it as surrender to business.

We citizens have an adversarial relationship with business, and the government provides a counterbalance to the economic power of business (when things are working properly). Corporate bribes are an attack on that balance of power.

--Robert