On the other hand, pure capitalism is inherently unstable, since the checks and balances of a competitive market always seem to land hardest and cruelest on the small and independent entrepreneur, while the larger, more established firms are both more immune to minor market shifts, but also have the resources to game the system in their favor. Those who own everything, hire everyone, and make and sell all will inevitably accumulate enormous power, either through malicious bullying, or just by the sheer weight and inertia of their presence. They will inevitably mold their environment to their benefit, not the society’s. They will also quickly learn to work together so their collective interest comes first. Producers would rather compete with consumers and employees than with each other. The aristocrats may always be at war, but the threat of a peasant revolt will unify them in a heartbeat. And nothing will unify them faster than the fear that the peasants are organizing themselves.

The only solution is the middle course, which is the one that has been adopted, in different forms, by all the countries in history we tend to call “free”. It is what has made the US the most prosperous and humane society in history. We have allowed the people to participate and be the owners and producers of wealth, but we have also provided a social safety net as well as regulation and controls to prevent abuses by the economic leadership.

Has this worked perfectly? Of course not. Does it work all the time? No, human societies and economies cannot be fine tuned like delicate machinery. But we should beware of those that complain that since it doesn’t work perfectly all the time we should therefore do nothing at all. Still, the system has worked tolerably well, and most important, has shown a tendency to improve over time, and adjust to social and technological change. Things are better now than they were in the early twentieth century. The Gilded Age of laissez-faire capitalism sucked a big one.

The market can do part of the job, but left to itself will tend to favor its most successful (or at least, its largest) players. We should never forget that the role of the successful capitalist, whether it be an individual owner, or a hired manager answering to a collective ownership, is to avoid and subvert the checks and balances of a free market. By natural selection, those who are good at it will tend to rise to the top on the backs of their more principled competitors.

The will of the people, through the rule of constitutional law and a representative democracy, is also capable of going astray in a variety of ways, but I cannot think of any alternative. The public may not always be able to recognize what is best for its own long-term benefit, but it is certainly well qualified to determine what is not working out and needs to be changed.

What needs to be understood is that even though the overall strategy that must be pursued to administer the society fairly and efficiently is obvious, and Americans have been very good at doing that historically, the details of this program have been very difficult to get straight. Not only is there criminal interference from those who seek only personal power and profit, but there has been honest disagreement between legitimate interest groups, with valid but conflicting interpretations and opinions. We simply do not know what is best most of the time, or how to achieve it, and we have to work out some form of political compromise. And of course, times do change, and sometimes we have to abandon what seemed like a good idea in the past, but did not work out in the long run. Constituencies that benefit from old decisions will fight to keep what is best for them, regardless of the value to the rest of society, whether they be beneficiaries of public welfare or powerful commercial interests.

So what can we do, politically, to ensure the right mix of public and private power? In my opinion, the single best thing we can do is to keep private money out of the political process. As long as it takes money to get elected, those with money will be able to sway elections. And the more money they have, the more power they will be able to wield. The fact that it doesn’t always work that way does not mean we should do nothing at all. The best way to avoid the concentration of power in fewer hands is to avoid the concentration of wealth in fewer hands. This does not mean we should all earn the same or own the same, all it means is that how much you earn and own must never be translated into political power and influence.

The only way to guarantee freedom is for every person’s vote to be of equal weight, regardless of where they live, who they are, what they do, or how wealthy they are. The franchise must be expanded to as many as possible, voting representation should be strictly partitioned by solely geometrical considerations, i.e., voting district boundaries should be randomly drawn, regardless of the demographic properties and distribution of those being represented.

Under capitalism, wealth will eventually accrue to the wealthy, leaving the poor very poor.

Socialism with a provision for capitalism has a chance, as it can provide all with the basics, and allow some to become wealthy while preventing the very poor from having to do without essentials.

Pure socialism, wherein the basic industries and production from the land are owned by the State and used for the benefit of the general public might be the best. It’s positively criminal, for instance, for oil to be pumped from under US soil for the benefit of Big Oil. That should be funding the government.

And it’s criminal for the defense budget and military to be spent protecting Big Oil.