The Anti-Free Enterprise Effect of Corporate Collectives

In the time of Adam Smith and the Founders of the United States-the 18th century, there were few large non-governmental organizations. In the present era vast corporate conglomerates wield extreme political influence and are essentially antithetical to democracy based on individual rights and competition.

Consider the parable of the Pro Basketball League with a team being regarded as a corporation for illustrative purposes. Each team has a cap upon the number of players that can compete on the floor at one time at five. What if there was no limit on the number of people a basketball team or corporation could hire and play in the game?

The Chicago Bulls with a strong budget might hire 100 strong, tall men to their team to play next year. Because the Bulls are strong and numerous and since the Dayton Doppelgangers can only afford two players the Bulls win each year brushing aside the Celtics and Miami Heat. Investors pour cash into the Bulls and soon the City of Chicago is the entire team although they can't fit on the basketball court at one time. The Dutch Harbor Destroyers have trouble affording enough players to beat Chicago, so the Bulls increase in power and number winning several championships in a row. Without a limit on the number of players or employees a corporation can have at a reasonable number such as 5000, free enterprise competition fades away into a memory with the preferred locations and advantages of global concentrated power buying up everything and even prostitute-broadcasters to kiss their rears extolling the virtues of large corporations.

A simple reform of capitalism and corporatism to promote free enterprise, competition and rectification of individualism in business would cap the number of employees of a corporation at 5000 and the number of corporations an individual could invest in at just three. Microsoft instead of having a preferred location in the software world able to displace through size and power select competition would need to excel through plain intellectual excellence.  Like the 2012 Miami Heat a corporation would need to win through individual excellence of its players, coaches and training rather than dominate a market through gross large scale and political influence.


In pre-Columbian North America just before colonization the most popular Aboriginal sport was a war-like game crossed between field hockey and rugby in which anything was fair except murder. Many died of course getting punched, kicked and hit with sticks. It was a decadent era in which the more refined sport of javelin hurling at a rolling puck on a fine clay court had been lost with the fall of Cohokia. The logic of global Corporate expansion and decrease of government competence is to move toward the vast, unregulated sport of anarchy ball war before falling under corporate-communist global tyranny by a few elite representatives.

Large multi-national corporations decrease competition and corrupt local politics. Politicians are bought and paid for by multi-nationals and environmental and social agendas are corrupted in favor of the powerful. Broadcast media outlets are owned by concentrated wealth and power while politicians are unwilling to reform federal law to reallocate wavelengths for democratic, local podcast citizen use.

Corporations are after all just phenomenal large collectives of people not dissimilar to large Soviet collectives. One might read Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason' and get a clue about the phenomenal nature of social collectives such as corporations and communes. Governing a nation of individuals with a free enterprise ethos and rationally regulated corporations advancing ideas creatively and taking market share through superior creativity would be far less expensive and corrupted than as in the present era. The founders would have been quite concerned about the influence of huge non-governmental organizations and their anisotropic political influence upon public affairs.