Within just about any society with a market economy there always seems to exist a king paradox. The kings (wealthy and elite of society) rule over the peasants (everyone else). The peasants could overthrow the kings of society by simply refusing to accept their wealth. However, a good share of the peasants believes that they themselves can become kings. Therefore, the kings of society can keep their position simply by paying only enough of their wealth to keep the peasants from organizing to overthrow them. The contradiction lies in that kings must answer to the peasants by distributing just enough of their wealth to keep the peasants in line and also to foster the illusions that any peasant could become a king. Thus the peasants are ruled by their own desires. The interesting aspect of this paradox is it falls apart once the peasants adopt a gift economy. By doing so, the kings have no control because the resources of the economy usually become distributed based on need as opposed to desire. Competitiveness and incentive still exist within a gift economy as opposed to socialistic economies which simply give property to the state. The ultimate advantage to a gift economy is that it utilizes reciprocal altruism instead of egotistic competition, and as a result, much of the instability and social conflict that result from unequal distribution of resources is negated. So the question is why society has not become a gift economy? What force is inspiring people towards desire and endless production over altruism and responsibility? It is my opinion that the existence of a market economy is simply evidence of human greed and a lack of awareness.