Please allow me to delurk.

> I respectfully submit that this is the point of view of a social
> Luddite.  This basically destroys the notion of the corporation, and
> sets us back to prefeudal society.

Didn't corporations only become persons in the early part of the
last century in America?  Isn't it the result of a supreme court
decision, and not of law?  If my understanding is correct, were
we prefeudal during the Civil War?  Were the transcendentalists,
Emerson and Thoreau, prefeudalists?

Calling an idea social ludditism seems like an ad notionem argument (a
made up latin phrase, from one who never studied latin.)  It seems progressive
to me to say -- Here is a system which does not work, and we'll fix it --
nas opposed to your -- This is the system we have, and it is inevitable.

I guess the thing I find most vexing about the corporatist gospel is the
sense of inevitability we are constantly told of.  We are supposed to believe
that the Law of the Efficient Market is as natural, inescapable and unique
as Newton's laws of motion.  I just don't buy it myself.  It seems like
it's a human, social construction.  We could construct it another way.
Indeed, the argument only exists to justify the social construction.
Indeed, don't you think that there are many politicians or business people
who would be happier being king?  If they could, they would make an argument
that they have a divinely given right to rule over all of us.