User blog comment:GrandMethuselah67/Character Sheet: Malcolm River/@comment-4867780-20161014010956/@comment-4867780-20161016001130

I'm not talking about political organization, I'm talking about empirical end results. Considering the very nature of economy, isn't it natural for a small number of exceptionally talented individuals to build private empires that end up indirectly ruling the society they belong to ? Economical success is like snow balls : the more talented you are, the more money you gain, the easier success become, the more you can capitalize on it for more money and more success, etc. etc. And the negative opposite is also true : the competition of bigger companies led by smarter entrepreneurs inevitably eats away at your humble little business little you're either driven out of it or assimilated into the Borg.

So when it comes down to it, isn't it the nature of free markets to give birth to private financial oligarchies that indirectly rule the world through sheer economical superiority ? No more technical abstractions please, just a clear and simple description that a profane can actually understand ^ ^; Like what I did in the previous paragraph, for example.

I can't help wondering, if a complete privacy model is so overwhelmingly superior all-around, how comes it is virtually nonexistent in the entire history of mankind ? Surely, not everything can be blamed on the big bad government, on this scale there has to be some major societal issues that privacy worshippers have seriously overlooked, otherwise statistically we would have at least a small number of these up and running somewhere in the world.

If Malcolm isn't any better or any worse than Bradley, then why is he aligned "Good" why Bradley is aligned "Evil" ? Seeing as neither is better nor worse, shouldn't they both be "Neutral" instead ?