In Marx's view, equality extends in terms of distribution, where there is no private ownership, but where the government manages all goods for the supposed good of all citizens. Hence, equality extends not in terms of power, but in terms of material goods, which is managed by a centralized government. Hence, the bailout plan is ideal, with the government taking possession of the company and allowing its former owners to manage it in a way that is beneficial for its survival and the employees who depend on it for their survival.
I believe that the bailout should have been done. Like many other companies, GM was in financial trouble. Since the government was in a position to provide assistance, it is right that they should have done so. However, I tend to be in agreement with Locke and Smith that the government should not have taken permanent ownership of any of the companies...
Instead, I believe it would have been more ethical in terms of the free market economy to take temporary ownership of the companies it provides loans to only until such time as the loan is repaid. When seen in terms of utilitarianism, justice, rights, and caring, on might say that the bailout was indeed ethical if the alternative is no bailout. It is more useful for the economy and the employees of the company that the bailout is received, for example. All workers also have the right to continue working and receiving their salary. Justice is also served by providing the bailout to GM, since the government has also done this for other companies. In terms of caring, it is ethical that GM should have received assistance from the government, since not providing it with this would have created a financial disaster for the company and all the employees associated with it.
