Cries Against a Misconstrued Current

It may seem as though President Obama’s removal of Rick Wagoner, chairman and CEO of General Motors, is the fuse that will ignite America’s path to socialism.
Additionally it may be apparent that upon further reflection, an argumentative commitment to the preceding proposition is ultimately a commitment to idiocracy. And why, you may ask, is this the case?
Let us first get our facts straight. Wagoner was unable to reduce costs to a level that would make GM competitive. Nor did the executive promote the production of vehicles that would attract market shares. However, these shortcomings are not sufficient to attract government involvement by any means. But here comes the curveball.
It is commonly accepted today that Wagoner was “asked to step down” from his position as chairman and CEO. Let us give this articulation of our opponents the benefit of the doubt in assuming that a political request of the sort is the equivalent of force. What most do not realize is that saying Wagoner was “asked to step down” does not in fact capture the entirety of what really happened. In actuality, Wagoner was asked to step down as a pre-condition of federal help – meaning if he did not step down, GM would not receive federal bailout aid.
How is this any different than what we had earlier? By simply mentioning that Wagoner was asked to step down, one is strongly suggesting that the government laid it down as an imperative for the chief executive to resign. However, by attaching this simple word “precondition,” things change drastically as we now have a conditional – namely GM's receiving further federal aid implies Wagoner's having resigned. And indeed, Obama did make his request as a pre-condition.
What follows is that, at least in principle, Wagoner still had a choice to make his departure. If I were to ask my parents for a month's rent (given that I was unemployed and broke – a case of desperacy akin to GM's situation), and my parents agreed to offer me the rent on the condition that they could come by to my apartment anytime and move furniture around (much like the governmental restructuring of GM which might be underway), then it would still be left up to my own discretion to choose whether or not I would take them up on the offer. Analogously, Wagoner still ultimately had a choice, independent of any outcome.
President Obama did not simply approach a CEO at random, such as say Robert Iger of Disney or Sam DiPiazza of Pricewaterhouse, and request their resignation or nationalize their company. We would have reason to worry about a possible trend towards socialism only if such an instance were the case.
It is common for some to blow the impact of current events out of proportion, by say calling Obama's recent proposal is a step towards socialism. One may wish to uphold the ideal of a free-market with free trade, insofar as the underlying intention is to promote personal wealth, in addition to personal freedoms, and fall into no self-contradiction by claiming what President Obama did was right. We already went over personal freedom and proved that no such violation was made on that end. Any violation of personal freedom from the part of the government would require an imperative, or unconditional demand, on the government's end. However, no such imperative was given.
Likewise, free market principles have not been violated. Violation of free market principles would entail a barrier of free trade of some sort. However, no such barrier set on the part of the government exists.
We can safely conclude that any cries for a supposed loss of a free market are cries not worth bailing out.