What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?

"Enemies"!! C'mon. That is a false assumption. In many cases it is a symbiotic relationship. In general, balance is sought by the free market as supply of workers meets demands of owners. The owner takes a bigger economic risk than a worker. For that risk, the reward is greated, if the marketplace is suitable.To relate to the forum: Many similarities of Evolutionary principles occur in economies. Globalization is like the ability of an organism to spread from a local population to a wider area. Survival of the best adapted, etc. also apply. The money supply (and fluctuating value) also adapts to population, among other factors.It's interesting that some Evolutionists argue like Creationists on some topics of this forum (especially the political topics).

If only it were so easy. Universal health care just for US citizens? Why not universal care for everyone in the world? MRI's and CAT scans for everyone. The best medicine and treatment. The best doctors. Where do you draw the line on adequate health care? It's tough to do artificially by government mandate. Responsible cost controls are reality.Let's look at minimum wage, for example. Noble cause. However, the people and small business (not megacorportations) are the most guilty for hiring illegal immigrants to get lower costs and bypass the minimum wage requirement. That also eliminates work for the unemployed (even though they probably don't WANT to do hard labor!). Now, the illegal immigrants get minor health problems and go to the emergency rooms where (by law) they must be treated. The hospital staffing, supplies, facilities costs go up and the taxpayers must fork over more money. In Houston's case, this is property taxes. So, folks see taxes increase so much (thousands of dollars) that some of them (such as fixed income elderly) can no longer afford to live in their paid-for houses.I think some sort of "health account" is needed that each of us can decide how to manage our life according to risk decisions that we make (not some government agency). The government can play a role in protecting that money account (from ourselves) from being spent on luxuries.

There is nothing preventing you or others in our free country and capitalistic system that prevents this "run by workers" type of organization from doing this in the marketplace. In fact, partnerships are quite common.However, they don't always compete as well as a decisive structured organization. Decision-making and risk/reward can get murky and hard to reconcile. Some fail because of the competing self-interests of human nature in a company "run by workers". I am back to the evolution analogy of businesses surviving.What I sense from you is a government-regulated economy that would restrict freedom of organization. That puts power in the hands of a few. Mix that with the variety of human nature and the ability of ambitious selfish tyrants to rise with whatever means it takes, and you have a society that leads to communist-type governments that restrict freedom. Sorry, but I think "run by workers" as a government-imposed economic model is idealistic and unworkable (can't compete and leads to degradation).Evolution is a proven model. Let the people figure out how to compete with each other and reach acceptable (notice I didn't say the murky word "fair") conditions. It is a journey. It's freedom.It astounds me that Evolutionists, of all people, don't see the value of that principle in economic and government issues.

Have you ever tried door-to-door sales? Convincing people to do something that cost them something (material or time) is difficult. It is a skill. Bill Clinton certainly has it. He's so good that he can take your wealth without your realizing it... and if fact, he can get many folks to go along enthusiastically! That is skill that not everyone has.My point is that while it seems that capitalists contribute nothing, they actually have a skill and serve a useful purpose. Someone has to decide which ideas will survive and prosper, and mobilize a new organization/facilities/working capital, so it is best left with someone who may lose something from a bad decision, instead of some government bureaucrat who just has a job ... i.e. a true non-contributing parasite, to use your term.Workers make capitalist decisions everyday on a smaller scale. We all decide who should get our money for the goods and services that we need or luxuries we want.

I am pleased to see successful organizations as you describe!
Maybe there is hope, after all.Nevertheless, my point is that our system is already set-up to allow innovation and adaptation. We don't need more government programs to enable worker-led organizations to compete. You actually proved my point.I am not in favor of the excessive salaries and perks of top executives, either. The question is how to agree upon and keep leadership talent at compensation that is (cringe) "fair". Do we need (cringe) government regulation at all, and how would that be implemented? Another part of the issue is keeping unethical practices and corruption in check.