Occupy and Tea Party - Two sides of the same coin?

This morning I watched an hour-long interview with Chicago School Economist Luigi Zingales, where he discusses 'Crony Capitalism' and makes an interesting comparison between the Tea Party-libertarians and the Occupy-Leftists.

The full interview can be found here.

The short story:

There's "Crony Capitalism" around, especially in the US. Rent-seeking that involves personal favours or relationship to the political power is too profitable, almost/often more profitable than the actual work business do.

The Leftist see this as an inherent problem and want to remake the system, overthrow the system; such an approach normally involves large chunks of regulation, nationalisation, bonus/bail-out limits etc. Essentially, "Crony Capitalism is bad - let's remake the system, turning it 'good'".

The Tea Party/Libertarians also see Crony Capitalism as a large problem. The answer: reduce public and state power, making political connections less important, reducing incentives for lobbying.

Question is. In what state would corruption, nepotism and crony capitalism be more likely to occur? In a large state with lots of power, or in a small minimum state with very little influence over business matter?

Quite obvious.