It has always been said that the best person to rule the world is the person that does not desire the position. This platitude is probably true, but the literal lesson is rather pointless. Forcing a virtuous citizen into a position he/she does not want is morally corrupt. However, it does teach a more poignant message. Those in power are there because they seek exactly that. Virtue as a motivation is a rare trait. This is why there is a perception of politicians as corrupt, careless, and arrogant.

There are two dominant types of motivation in the world: political self-interest and economic self-interest. Both of these motivations are rooted in the desire for individual advancement. When structuring a society, the goal is to attain a system that allows for self-interest to advance the collective interest. This begs the question as to which motivation is most conducive to cooperation and societal advancement. This question will determine the structure of a successful society. Should political self-interest run the world, or should economic self-interest?

Imagine a world where power is given to those who pursue political advancement. In this hypothetical world, there is Politician X. Politician X wants to rise in this system. To do this, he/she needs to rise politically. Although societies throughout history with political freedom and not economic freedom are near non-existent, let us assume that this is a democracy. Understanding it is the easiest possible way to attain position, Politician X is a demagogue. He/she professes the desires of the masses to get their vote. Politician X is soon elected. What type of policies would he/she institute? Assumedly, there would be some policies correlating with his/her rhetoric, but Politician X now has the incentive to institute policies growing and securing the power of his/her position. The motivation is to centralize. Now, political power is very different than economic power. Economic power still needs the voluntary consent of the other party, since coercion is not an option. Political power is not bound by these rules. Coercion is the very nature of political power, since the power of law resides the ability to force separate parties into obeying the dictation of the government. This is toxic to cooperation. Cooperation implies a voluntary arrangement. Coercion is, by nature, forceful. Politician X has no equal. He/she is holding a metaphorical, possibly literal, gun to the heads of other parties. There is no necessity for cooperation because Politician X has the power of force. The only option is to rely on the supposed virtue of those in power. Politician X need not be a singular person. He/she could be a political party, or an entire class of political elite. Politician X is simply an entity that holds political power.

Now imagine a world that depends on economic self-interest. Meet Citizen X. Citizen X runs a refrigerator company. Citizen X pursues economic advancement. To do so, he/she designs a product that appeals to the masses. He/she must then manufacture this product. He/she needs to get, through the promise of mutual profit, investors to fund this project. He/she must then contact a manufacturer to make this product. The manufacturer must then contact people that sell the metal required for this product. Those people need to obtain, most likely through another party, the raw materials to produce the metal. All of these parties must hire employees for the labor required to make their respective part of the arrangement. All of the people involved in the self-interest of Citizen X are motivated by their own economic self-interest. People who have no other reason to cooperate are being brought together by the promise of mutual economic advancement. There is no coercion involved. Citizen X must then convince consumers to buy his/her product by assuring a positive improvement in their living. Cooperation is key. Thousands of people have been brought together on a single project just by the promise of financial gain. The amount of cooperation that is required in a free-market world is staggering. This is because the world is built on voluntary arrangements, rather than coercion. There is practically nothing that can better create willing participation than the pursuit of economic power.

Politician X and Citizen X are very similar people. They both pursue an advantageous position in their world. However, their methods are very different. Citizen X must continue to cooperate to maintain the position. Politician X simply needs to be electable. Even in the event that Politician X is removed from his/her position by collective decision, who would replace him/her? It would probably be, as it is with many politicians, a person with similar desires. Society needs to be arranged in a way to correctly use the ambitions of ambitious people. If it is not, then the power of coercion can easily become a idle plaything for the power-hungry.