The Company That Runs Everything*

"Efficiency is priority number one, people. Because waste is a thief."

~ Fight Club

Imagine an enlightened time, hopefully not too far in the future, when consumers no longer have to fight for deals, good service, or good products. I foresee all manner of pampering on behalf of the customer, and all from one company.

For too long, consumers have been given the shaft. Does it really make sense to have a Yellow Pages, with sometimes hundreds of businesses all spending your money (ultimately it's your money) just to get your attention? Is it efficient to get bills each month from ten to twenty entities? Why should we not just pick the best company, tell it our needs, and then have it meet them all at a fair price? The confusion and stress which come from the multiple assessments required to fulfill needs in your life is not necessary.

Think of the ease of payment alone were one company to handle everything: One single piece of paper with a total on it. There would be no need for itemizing, because itemizing is really only for customers who want to see what each thing costs, monitoring to ensure value. However, the situation I have in mind eliminates wasteful itemizing and penny watching. Remember, this is a single company I'm proposing. And it's not just any company; it's the best company. Big difference. Searching for value is, by definition, unnecessary when guaranteed the best value in all things. This company was selected for everyone by everyone because it can be trusted like no other, and because it has our interests as its prime directive. In fact, because there will be only one company, it is fair to say that we, the people, are the company. Who else would we work for when there's only one company? What companies we work for now can simply be folded into The Company.

I must confess that there will be a drawback or two under the plan, but nothing we can't live with, and happily. Life is not perfect, and neither is anything as complex as what I envision. On balance, however, it's far superior to the endless parade of painful details which now plagues consumers.

One problem, I admit, will be that in order to achieve maximum efficiency while pleasing the most amount of people, companies with ultra-specialized products or services must be retooled. Since we're all paying into The Company, it's not fair for any market which caters to less than 10% of the population to drag the rest of us down and raise costs. Things like exotic sports cars, bizarre hobbies, and weird artwork must be phased out as the existing supply is used up. In cases where products can be dismantled and their parts used for more mainstream products, the existing supply can be scuttled right at the changeover point.

The natural question to be asked regarding this proposal is, "What company will be chosen as The Company – the one entity which can smoothly envelop all existing companies while being trusted to deliver for the consumer?"

I submit that the natural choice, although there may be a constitutional hurdle or two, is the Federal Government of the United States of America. Just think about it. Most of the foundation is already in place, including convenient payment in exponential proportion (huzzah!) to your income, complete lack of itemization on your bill, and a fair distribution of the burden among all citizens.

Why does that ring a bell?

No matter. As the Federal Government already handles most of the details regarding employment, why should it not just take the natural step of actually being the employer? There’s really no point in having the fox only halfway in the door of the hen house; you get only half of the benefits. I envision sublime simplicity where we no longer have to fight for which car is the best (with all the silly paperwork of the Federal Government having to communicate to each company exactly how they are to make cars), what house to buy (ditto), or what people to associate with (ditto). All that remains is for the Federal Government to finish the job it's obviously setting itself up to, um . . . is "seize" too harsh a word?

We should vote for the best decision maker, and then that person and his delegates tell us the way things should be. The end of pain. Say goodbye to worrying about the mix of details in your life, and hello to fighting your neighbor tooth and nail so that your mix becomes his.

Again, why is this sounding familiar to me?

No matter. Enjoy spending the remnant of your time and money supporting your "representative" in congress as he shapes your neighbor's environment to something which more closely resembles your ideal. You will not have, nor need, choice. Of course, you will not be forced to partake of products you don't want, but we'll save time and money by not accounting for such trivialities on your bill. Though I would not call it compromise, there’s a certain poetic imperfection to it which thankfully avoids that nasty modern liberal tendency to aim for, and even promise, perfection.

Did you ever have that feeling at the deli when you just wanted to announce, "Give me your best sandwich, stout yeoman, whatever it may be!" Certainly beats poring over pages of menus, usually in unpredictable and confusing formats. Who is not going to admit that the first visit to a restaurant is often begun with 5 minutes of orientation (or more!), all of it useless? There should be one such orientation per lifetime, and we can get on with the business of life itself.

I think of the months spent shopping for special things, weighing products and vendors against a mostly intangible mix of preferences – preferences which are more than outweighed by the splendor which would be the banishment of choice.

Who am I to decide the flavor of my life? Where's the sense in that? It is only a tribulation of daily decision making, sometimes in a dynamic environment which, frankly, I can't be trusted to handle. Nobody should be trusted to handle it. There is power in coming together to solve our problems, and I do not see any reason why it should end at health care, education, employee selection, and charity. Why should there not be a national car? Why should there not be a national fast food restaurant?

Think of that last example alone. Billions of dollars wasted on advertising, and for what? So you can decide if you want a greasy burger or a greasier burger. Something is rotten in the state of free enterprise. With one swoop we can rid ourselves of TV ads, billboards, and (this is the best part) the somewhat questionable lawsuits such as those brought recently by those who, perhaps because of a slight self-control problem, found themselves unable to resist the brutally effective advertising of the corporate magicians. Why would anybody sue a fast food restaurant if it's The fast food restaurant? They'd just be suing themselves, since we all together are owners of The Company. And how would they sue The fast food restaurant when it, coincidentally, happens to be protected by law from such suits?

That last point is irrelevant because nobody would launch a suit which could possibly take bread from his fellow man. And it could not even get to that stage, because people working at The Company would look out for one another. Why wouldn't they when we'd all be working for each other at the same company? There would be no competition, no cut throats, and no worrying about who does what; as with the heartache eliminated by needless choice in restaurants and every other product, worrying about what one does for a living would be a thing of the past. You would be working for the only employer, and that employer would have the right (the requirement, actually) to let you move where your services would most benefit the company, just as employers do now, but with a much wider range of available jobs, locations, and options. We will all benefit from having the best people in the best jobs.

It all wraps up rather nicely. We could easily save a trillion dollars a year by combining forces and eliminating middlemen. With that money saved, it's not a problem to guarantee each member of society (The Company) a regular paycheck, as well as a national car, tampon, airline, delivery service, shoe polish, and casket.

I will not go fully into the myriad benefits of this plan, but they are obvious when you think of it (improved health care, nobody left behind, wonderful bagels each morning, cheap espresso machines). I’m amazed, frankly, that nobody has thought of it until now. But I give it to society. Let it be my legacy to you all.

*Some minor assumptions of my plan:

Lowered prices, unknown prices, or pooled payments will not increase demand.
Prices are unnecessary.
Choice is not a strong element in a robust economy.
Coercive monopoly (the only true monopoly) is acceptable.
Competition is a net loss.
Morality, charity, and friendliness are at their most genuine and effective when invoked by edict and threat.
Diversity is good, but in proportion to norms. Diverse attitudes can be destructive when not humanitarian.
Things which would never be tolerated were they done from one person to another are fine when done by a group.
Mob rule (democracy) is good. See previous assumption.
Bigger is better.
Central control is best.
Tax "revenue" is not dependent on markets.
The will to survive is not a necessary human trait. It's archaic, and serves no purpose.
Ditto with the will to excel; excellence is achieved through unity.
People drawn to power usually exhibit beneficence at average levels or higher.
People in power over others stay the same as when they did not have such power.
People are OK with their work benefiting others more than themselves.
Productivity does not decline as long as people are happy.
People are never unhappy being told what to do.
The selfishness of productive people is . . . well, it's very selfish.

[Taking my time on this last one, because I want to make sure I get it right and not leave any important words out:]

"It'll be one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind, baby!"

May 12, 2003

Charley Hardman (send him mail) works with databases in Washington, DC.

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page