7/22    After giving it some thought, I think the real issue isn't 'communism'
        or 'fascism' but 'bureaucratism.'  Large, soulless bureaucracies are
        something Big Government and Big Business have in common.  In fact, the
        two Bigs are so similar, I am surprised people can be so vehemently
        opposed to one and not the other.  The issue is that people are small
        pack animals, they don't like big ant hill arragements, and so they are
        unhappy working as a part of a bureaucracy.  Ask anyone working with
        (or for) one of the above Bigs.  I think what's needed is to make
        our society more like a collection of packs and less like an ant hill,
        or to make us more like ants biologically. -- ilyas
        \_ Theory indicates that ant societies are as cohesive and
           altruistic as they are because siblings share 3/4 of their
           chromosomes, not just 1/2. Humans do not have this interesting
           reproductive scheme.
           \_ Interesting sidenote: in african mole rat societies (they are the
              only mammal to evolve eusociality), the 'worker rats' cannot
              breed because, apparently, they are too stressed out by the
              bossing around they receive from the 'queen rat.'  -- ilyas
        \_ Awsome! I've tried to convince you of this repeatedly, as have other
           poeple on the motd.  Now, the next step is to recognize that the
           libertarian stance that big business should have no restrictions
           on it is just as dangerous to individual rights as statism,
           particularly since the big business interests and the statists
           generally work hand in hand.
           \_ The problem is, your solution to Big Business is to sic Big
              Government on it.  I am a little sceptical of this, for obvious
              reasons.  The libertarians believe Big Business should have
              restrictions, btw, same as everyone else.  They shouldn't trample
              on people's rights.  My point is a wider, I think, point about
              what kind of society it takes to make people happy.  Even if
              Big Business was perfectly well behaved, I think people would be
              unhappy working for it, and dealing with it.  We as humans just
              don't like large hierarchies very much. -- ilyas
              \_ Ah, but libertarians admit that big government is needed
                 to defend against foreign enemies, even if it is a necessary
                 evil.  This is totally analogous.  When a corporation with
                 hundreds of thousands of employess is killing people by
                 dumping toxic waste into the water table, using big gov't to
                 fight them in court is exactly analogous to using it
                 to fight a foreign enemy who is trying to kill us.
                 \_ You seem to know a lot about libertarians that I, a
                    libertarian, find very new.  Are you sure you aren't
                    confusing libertarians and republicans? -- ilyas
                    \_ don't most libertarians vote republican?
                    \_ Libertarianism seems doomed as a practical model of
                       governance, because it is based entirely on ideal
                       models.  In this way it is very much like communism.
                       \_ ... moved.
                          \_ I didn't!  I don't think ilya is using motdedit,
                             so his posts are getting intermingled as he
                             edits them.  This happens to people a lot.
        \_ Tell us about the ant-people, ilyas
           \_ Read Hellstrom's Hive by Frank Herbert.  A really creepy book.
                -- ilyas
        \_ There is no such thing as society, only collections of individuals.
           -- some stupid old bitty
        \_ How can rational people be pro-Big-Government and
           anti-Big-Business?  Because they believe the former ultimately
           takes care of them, but the latter works them to death in pursuit
           of the Almighty Dollar.  How can a person be anti-Big-Government
           and pro-Big-Business?  By believing the former takes advantage of
           hard working folks, benefiting the lazy; and the latter is a
           creation of hard working people and raises the standard of living
           for everyone.  But everyone knew all of this already, right?
           \_ I think neither of those beliefs is very rational.  The two
              Bigs are not very different in their structure.  Their only
              difference is mandate (Big gvt can use force). -- ilyas
              \_ That 'difference' is B.S.  Big business can always get the
                 government to use force for it.  If there was no government
                 then business would just have private armies.
              \_ While you think that these beliefs are not very rational,
                 rational people do hold these beliefs.  (There is a subtlety
                 in that sentence.)
           \_ You may wish to consult this entry:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
              \_ Naturally you can find rational people who are anti-both.
                 I was addressing ilyas' "surprise" at people being pro-one
                 and anti-the-other.
                 \_ Don't expect people here to understand what
                    is a logical fallacy and what is not.  Reading
                    comprehension is not a general forte here.
                    \_ I is a college student!
        \_ People don't like feeling like they aren't in control of their
           lives.  People by nature think large hierarchies reduce their
           freedom.  Big business and big government are both large
           hierarchies, so both are bad.  We should have smaller hierarchies.
           I think I've just summarized your thesis.
           \_ It's a pretty good attempt.  I would only add that even in
              situations where people understand that their freedom must
              be voluntarily given up (say to sit in a cubicle and program
              for a day), they will still be unhappy due to the incessant
              rain of little stupidities and injustices that you would get
              working in some large org.  Also, not only do 'people think that',
              it's actually true. -- ilyas
              \_ You could have just said:
                 Large hierachies *do* reduce happiness, and this occurs
                 whether people are voluntarily part of the hierarchy (as in
                 a company) or forced to be in it (as in subject to the federal
                 government).
                 \_ I think the voluntary aspect is important. If I am truly
                    free to leave to form my own group or join another then
                    I can potentially be happy working as a group I believe in.
                    If economic pressures are too harsh then freedom will
                    depend too much on competitive advantage.
              \_ I don't think it's always true. I work for a large corp. but
                 operationally the only concern is my immediate group. There
                 is a common business hierarchy with a boss/director/VP. Any
                 time you have any kind of hierarchy there's potential strife.
                 Even small tribal societies, or wolf packs for that matter,
                 may operate seemingly ideally but are not free of strife.
                 I think this sort of strife is reduced when there are social
                 elements in place to avoid huge differentials in wealth and
                 power, fundamental rights are guaranteed, and power is
                 representational. Then there is a size beyond which this
                 power loses some meaning, and probably the US federal gov't
                 has grown to a size and power that is uncomfortable.
                 "But I was now escaped out of the shadow of the Roman empire,
                 under whose toppling monuments we were all cradled, whose laws
                 and letters are on every hand of us, constraining and
                 preventing. I was now to see what men might be whose fathers
                 had never studied Virgil, had never been conquered by Caesar,
                 and never been ruled by the wisdom of Gaius or Papinian."