Those who use this argument as the basis for the proposition that the government should control the means of production, sometimes attempt to reinforce it by introducing the issue of the corruption of democratic institutions. They argue that large companies and wealthy individuals contribute to party funds and - by making the parties dependent on their support - gain an additional advantage. Legislators may even be bribed, as seems to happen more frequently in a democratic system which gives greater power to the individual legislators than to the party. This argument, however, appeals more to our moral indignation than to reason. No one has yet produced evidence that one form of democratic government is necessarily composed of more moral members than another. The implicit argument that it would be good if members of the community were so poor that they could not bribe anyone is not particularly appealing from the point of view of freedom. It is, however, significant that anyone to any extent advocating a socialist solution to disparities in influence - and hence in freedom - should introduce it. This question touches on a point neglected (though not entirely overlooked) by Sidney Hook and Max Eastman in their noted debate for and against greater government ownership of the means of production.4