are supposed to have. In fact, they don't. Whatever economies they reach or quickly overwhelmed by a series of diseconomies, including lack of internal markets, information costs, agency problems, the divorce of technical from entrepreneurial knowledge, among other problems. (see http://distributism.blogspot.com/2009/03\\... ) In fact, these corporations are indigestible lumps of socialism in what is supposed to be a free-market system. So why are they "successful"? Because of inherent gov't subsidies. I am somewhat amused by those who equate free-ways with free-dom. I thought the later involved some minimum level of personal responsibility, such as paying for what you consume. If Wal Mart can be successful with the subsidy, then they should have no objection to a test of the theory. I will gladly exchange their gas taxes for weight/distance tolls, but I don't not think they will agree to that exchange; they know a good deal when they see one. Russell, if by being "too philosophical" you mean "talking over John's head," then you are too philosophical by half. But then everybody is, or nearly. Nevertheless, I think your definition of "red" would catch everybody who isn't actually an anarchist; even Locke wants a state that he can call on to defend his property from the hoi polloi. If red means we should care for each other and have institutional and legal means for doing so, then we should all be red. There is nothing "red" in Blond's analysis. And yet I find confusing his idea of a "permanent ascendancy