It’s about time we quit making excuses and face the truth. There are only two kinds of people: those who make things happen, and those who react when things happen to them. It has nothing to do with intelligence, there are clever people and fools on both poles; and it has nothing to do with good or evil, there are saints and sinners in each category. Neither is this a case of black and white, most people are a mixture of both qualities. And folks can change, you can drift from one group to the other. Still, if you have to draw a line somewhere, that’s how we split up humanity. Us and them, you and me, labor and management, hard hat and necktie, owner and renter, officer and enlisted, actors and audience. It’s always been this way and it will always be this way. However, the rules for membership can change. Some communities are divided into the physically strong and the weak, old and young, and others into the respected and the untested, still others into those who are nobles and those who are not. In many societies, what decides which kind of person you are is purely an accident of birth, the result of one’s race, age, gender, national origin, religion, class, you name it. But we have found a new way. A better way. The only way.

Today, we are not ordered by brute physical strength, or skill at arms, or ability to interpret magical signs. We are a commercial culture, we buy and sell and trade. We make money, and even though many other activities are going on, everything from major league baseball to rock and roll stardom to brain surgery, I think that everyone will be forced to admit that in our society those who are at home in the economy and can make it work for them are really in charge of it. And should be. Look at those examples, the athlete needs a coach, manager, a team owner and a league commissioner. The musician needs agents, broadcast executives and record producers. Even the highly skilled and educated doctor works in a hospital that was built and is managed by commercial entities and financed by insurance claims. Furthermore, even though the athlete, musician and doctor normally cannot do each other’s job, the business infrastructure they all inhabit is manned by managers and executives who are, to a very great extent, interchangeable. Just as money frees us from barter by substituting a neutral means of exchange, business and commerce replaces individual skills and expertise with a neutral and general path to achievement and excellence, independent of whatever particular skill or talent or education we may possess. Business is the playground of the generalist, and it is the only place where a non-specialist can excel in today’s highly technological civilization. This is because what we call business, or management, is the control mechanism, the brain of society. It is the part of our culture that monitors activity and distributes resources. If the factory is the engine room, the office is the bridge. This is from where the ship is conned.

It wasn’t always this way. In primitive societies the biggest bully or best hunter may have been top dog. But as soon as we began to develop agriculture and settled communities, the need to organize and coordinate human activity created a new leadership role.
Sure, the king may have been kept in power by the brawn of warriors and the labor of slaves, but the fact remains that he didn’t have to do the heavy work or the fighting. Others did it for him. Yes, there were a lot of problems and injustices with this system, but it did make possible surplus production, specialized labor, technological advancement, arts, literature, science…civilization. And when the kingly class became too powerful, they were challenged by the merchants, the democratizing force which has always curbed the abuses of political power. Slavery was abolished by feudalism’s property holders, which substituted an improved form of organization of the workers, and a dispersal of power from one great king to a class of nobles. The rise of trading cities and the financial class eventually doomed that aristocracy and their crushing abuse of the peasantry. The renaissance gave us guilds and banking, merchant princes and global exploration. The geographers drew the maps and the sailors manned the ships, but they sailed looking for goods and markets. Scientists and engineers made the industrial revolution possible, but it was businessmen and bankers who financed it, who willed it to happen. In those societies, however technically advanced or culturally sophisticated, (like China and Arabia) where a distinct commercial class did not arise among the merchant-nobles, future development ceased and stagnation set in.

At each step in this long process, it becomes more and more democratic and the economic (political) power is dispersed to more people. Sure, there were injustices and tyranny, but things got better for increasing numbers and it became possible for citizens to prosper by participating in the economic system by means other than as a producer or consumer. Even the common man could become a coordinator, an expediter, a manager, if he had what it took. The management of the economy itself, the control of money, what we call business, is actually the first information technology. People started making their living by analysis and manipulation of an abstract commodity, capital, not just making or growing things. And then something very interesting happened.

In the past, when people accumulated power, they moved to consolidate it by forbidding others to participate with them in the exercise of that power. It usually required a technological revolution or political upheaval to dislodge them. This didn’t work in the new economic organization, the market. Those who wished to form monopolies and cartels soon found that they were underpriced by entrepreneurs and pushed out of business. Individuals who desired to achieve economic or financial hegemony soon found that their competitors formed alliances and partnerships, companies, sold stock, further dispersing the political power while simultaneously accumulating economic strength. And all the time, the market and competition ruthlessly enforced efficiency and productivity. People slowly became more prosperous. Of course, there were always differences in wealth, often enormous ones, but even this was the engine that drove the creativity of the system. You could make money by working harder, or tapping into the labor of others. Those who complain that they work for another are always free to work for themselves. Many tried, and some failed, but the successes were chosen by a ruthless selection process as effective as any we see at work in the biological world. And every year, even the poorest were better off than they had been the year before and the rich (although few) increased in number. But most important, those between the rich and poor, an almost non-existent class in the past, began to grow in unprecedented numbers. It was this middle class that finally finished off the last remnants of the land-owning aristocracy of the eighteenth century, the robber barons of the nineteenth century, and finally, the parasitic intellectual elites of the twentieth. By the middle of the twentieth century, most large industrial and commercial companies were owned , not by rich businessmen, but by countless stockholders. Capitalism made freedom possible, and the corporation made it inevitable. This is true democracy and dispersal of wealth and power. And it is the gift not of a benevolent despot, or a philosopher-king, or a government bureaucrat or college professor, but a natural and inevitable result of market capitalism.

An unanticipated benefit of the new order was that even those who preferred to work for others were able to participate in the labor market; were free to sell their skills to the highest bidder, forcing the entrepreneurial class to compete for their services and establishing a free and unmanipulated mechanism to set wages, just as ruthlessly mechanical and fair as the one which controlled prices. Supply and demand treats everyone, the rich and the poor, the owner and the worker, the same. Sure, the employee always complains that he doesn’t make enough, but the employer also complains about how much he must pay. The boss who won’t give his workers what they’re worth will lose them to one who will. And when workers seek to subvert the market with labor unions, they sow the seeds of their own failure. Those businesses which must pay artificially inflated prices for labor cannot compete with firms with market-determined salary structures.

In the political sphere, much the same occurs. The economic power and influence of the increasingly democratized business community curbs the abuses of elected officials and petty tyrants alike. It does this by forcing the political sector to rely on voluntary contributions by business to facilitate the electoral process. In this way, market forces can directly influence government policy in an objective competitive manner, as well as through the complex indirect and inherently flawed mechanism of elections. The failed experiment of Communism shows what happens when you remove private power from the political arena. The Communists were right to fear Capital, they could not compete against it, not overseas, or in their own countries.

As the power of political institutions begins to yield to commercial organizations and as the control of those organizations becomes more dispersed amongst the people, a situation is created which favors those who are at home in this world, the entrepreneurs and the managerial/executive class. Entrepreneurs aren’t necessarily smarter than anyone else, or better educated, or morally superior, or even harder workers. What they do have is the capacity to take a chance, to bet everything they have on an idea, and to work as hard as they can to make something happen. At the same time, they must protect their business reputation (without which they are doomed) by behaving in a legal and ethical manner. Many, if not most, fail. Many try and fail many times, some are even destroyed. But they represent a bottomless pool of strivers continuously trying to make things happen, innovating, trying, taking chances, experimenting. They are the ones who create change. They are the vanguard in the army of progress and they take the casualties. Those who are content to work and draw a paycheck may be good workers, thay may be highly skilled, very ethical, perhaps even brilliant, but they have forfeited their right to lead by seeking security. And they have access to that security only because others are investing the money, accepting the responsibility and taking the risks for them.

This is why we must create a society which nurtures and rewards the entrepreneur, not one that shackles and obstructs him. Without the effort of the man of enterprise, and without the risk he takes, everyone will suffer. There is already enough ruin decimating the ranks of our businessmen from the ruthless natural selection of the market for us to add to it by regulation and control. We can help him by ensuring that the market is free to do its magic by removing, wherever possible, the oppression by government. We must free business from regulation, unnecessary expense, taxation, and the tyranny of unions. The proper role of government is to provide protection from criminals, defeat foreign enemies, to establish legal and regulatory standards which favor the entrepreneur and protect trade by ensuring property rights. In addition, government can target isolated economic problems by providing business with the financial resources it needs to get the job done, by providing improvements to infrastructure, for example, or cutting red tape in the bidding of contracts. The best way to do this is to consult the business community and incorporate their advice into legislation and court rulings, to guarantee that the market works unfettered. The overall power of government should be contained, and the advice and leadership of the business community incorporated in it as much as possible. Narrow special interests with limited agendas which inhibit or attack entrepreneurial activity must be restricted and not be allowed to influence democratic processes or manipulate political institutions. The ability of these interests to commandeer the media, corrupt popular culture and propagandize among our youth should be curtailed by all legal and moral means.

The man of commerce has always been opposed by the forces of reaction and the status quo. This struggle has often been a difficult one since the entrepreneur usually has his attention fixed on the practical problems associated with making his enterprise succeed. He often fails to notice the envy and hostility directed against him and his activities by those who either will profit from his failure, or who have an ideological stake in his destruction. He is further handicapped by his usual neglect to organize his own class as an effective social or political force. Businessmen participate reluctantly in the political process, and are often outflanked by highly disciplined and heavily financed lobbies and organizations. In the past, the aristocracy attacked the rising middle class on social grounds, with an utter contempt for their “new wealth”, a wealth based on aggressive trade and technical innovation (as opposed to family fortunes from feudal landholdings). The communist attack on capitalism was led by intellectuals who could not compete fairly in the business arena, so they attacked instead the class and ethos they felt responsible for their personal failures. Today, a host of groups and factions with private agendas (which they expect to be financed by others) leads a constant assault on business and dominate our press, media, universities and the arts. These appear to be the institutions which attract those with little economic instinct or productive intelligence to contribute to the commonwealth. Although many of the individuals involved in these crusades are rather inconsequential, or perhaps misguided, there is a cadre of highly effective organizers and leaders which are characterized by a common thread: hatred and hostility towards the commercial universe (which they consider contemptible and uncivilized). They all seem to have another common characteristic, they do not have the ability or desire to contribute to their community by honest commercial activity, preferring instead to amass political power among the envious. The constant message of this faction is to ignore the benefit society receives from its business community, and to accuse it of being the cause of all that’s wrong with the world.

The men and women who manage our businesses and who daily risk their own fortunes and security in an effort to make our world deserve the cooperation and support of all of society. These are our best, our bravest, our leadership. We can help them, and ourselves, by insisting that they are unfettered from government control and crippling taxation and regulation. We can also help by supporting those governments and politicians which understand this. Above all, we must be ready to expose and condemn the unfair and exaggerrated criticism of the corporate community by the whiners and complainers, those too weak to lead and too lazy to follow.

We must resist the temptation to blame society’s problems on our commercial leadership, and to plunder the financial resources of business for dubious social expenditures. It is helpful, instead, to give credit for what is right to those who have given us our prosperity. Those of us who, for whatever reason, prefer to toil silently in the office or assembly line rather than jump into the constant struggle of business leadership must keep in mind that the relative security, peace and prosperity of our lives was paid for by the sacrifices and hard work of a few heroic entrepreneurs. We should also recall that at any time any one of us can abandon that peace and security and declare ourselves a warrior of the marketplace. Success is not guaranteed, of course, but without risk there can be no glory. And in that opportunity to accept risk lies true freedom. In no other society in history has the position of leadership been so democratic. It is available to anyone willing to accept the risk, and it is dispersed among millions who did accept that risk, not just a handful of the population. That opportunity is available to all, regardless of any of the artificial barriers that social class and racism, religious intolerance and sex have placed on human achievement in the past. To reward those who choose to accept this challenge is why we honor our business class, over and above the financial rewards attendant to success. It is why they have deserved the right to positions of leadership and influence over and above the monetary advantages they have accumulated. And it is up to all of us, whether we are one of them or not, to see to it that those who wish to deny them that respect and position be stopped, and if need be, punished.

I posted under my own name back in my naive days, with the same positions I hold now and have held for many years. At some point, they ran me off the board, including a veiled threat to my wife. You don’t want to be political under your own name in a large field of leftists.

I had already realized a long time ago that for liberals, it was far more important who said something than what was said. I slipped back into the board and generated a series of what I called “avatars.” Later I learned what a sock puppet was, but at the time avatars was the term I used. Their system was wide open, requiring only a name and an e-mail, and any made up e-mail would do. I never pretended to be anyone who already existed on the board, or any real person at all. Every avatar was completely fictional.

I would tailor a personality and the background to a particular thread, or a particular set of participants. As a relative stranger, my opinions could be couched in familiar terms, without the reflexive hostility generated toward a specific target.

“bobwire” was a Texan. “Dnc” was a rabid leftist. “Rnc” was a moderate Republican. “Techman” was a specialist in nuclear issues, and existed only on threads about nuclear power or engineering. “Ein” was the person who specialized in numbers and graphs. “Harry” was an older guy who lived in a small town, and had small town values. “Jasonleopold” only argued about Valerie Plame. “Margie” was a feminist. “Enrique” was Hispanic, discussing immigration. I forget which one was Australian. “Monkeybone” was a real bastard. I used him for flames.

I tuned my style, dialect, and spelling as needed. At my peak, I was simultaneously piloting thirty different people on this one site. I never responded to anything I had written myself, I only responded to other people.

It was a lark. If I was serious about it, I would have tried to figure out a way to cook my ISPs. I didn’t. I also suspect some common mannerisms or turns of phrase snuck through. Naturally, some moderator would eventually get a clue and discover that all these people were posting from one location. A moderator did. That was all for me, but it was fun, and stretched my brain a bit.

“It was far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them to behave like civilized men.” – Mr. Spock, from the Star Trek episode “Mirror, Mirror.”