Risk and Reward

The captains of industry, the titans of finance, and ne0conservative politicians and pundits all trumpet the virtues of the free market, deregulation, and reducing government intervention. They consistently say that if the government would only get out of their way, the "invisible hand" would result in unbridled prosperity. Those that assume great risk should reap great rewards. The economy should be a meritocracy with the strongest surviving and the weak being eaten. The invisible hand seems reasonable in theory, but...
Even the most ambivalent of the "lower" classes should notice, however, that when failure arrives and the ship founders, these same adventurous risk-takers are the first to grab for the life preserver. This has happened countless times. The adventurous take the big risk, if they succeed, they gather the big reward. If they fail, they leave us, the taxpayers, holding the bag. They then go on their merry way, free to try some new adventure, secure in the knowledge that they will not be held responsible for any incompetence or corruption--or simple carelessness. The most recent example is the Bear-Stearns bailout, but there are a stream of such events going back to the Savings and Loan bailout and beyond.
If I perform badly at my job, like most wage slaves I can expect a foot in the ass and nothing else but a dark spot on the resume. Shouldn't these people be held to some minimum standard of responsibility? I'm more of a hard-ass about this than the most staunch conservative. I think the government shouldn't bail these firms out. Period. If a bank goes under, the insurers should live up to their obligations and cover deposits (if they are insured), but beyond that, the bank should fail, and its officers should be on the street wearing a barrel. Investors are in the same boat. Take risk, invest in Bear-Stearns, and lose your shirt. You could have put you money in a CD, but no, you wanted the big reward. Maybe you listened to one of the experts and followed their infallible advice.
This happens frequently at the "C" level of business. A guy comes in, receives mammoth compensation, and if he fails, the company slides, but he walks with pockets full of money. It's time to insist on reward being commensurate with performance for these guys too. You fail, there's the door, no golden parachute. American management insists that if they don't offer such packages they won't attract the "best" people. But clearly they don't always hire the best people. If they hire a bum, why reward him at shareholders expense?