Political lobbying explained through the example of all-pay auctions

[kelseybutler94]

INTERESTING!!!thumbs up!

[allseevid]

that communist in front clearly has no idea about what he's talkin' about

[stormseeker442]

@allseevid how is he communist?

[dafeltre]

I don't understand this example. Why is the first person willing to raise her bid from .75 to 1.25?

[VNLAICE96]

@dafeltre Because it is an all pay auction, she would have to pay the 75 cents even though the leading bid was currently a dollar. This would result in losing 75 cents. But by bidding $1.25, she would be the leading bid and win the dollar, resulting in a loss of only 25 cents.

[stormseeker442]

@dafeltre to fuck over the other people

[oiuoiu988]

the only way to prevent this is to abolish the state...

[rayyf69]

@oiuoiu988 I think i agree. Eventually the state becomes a market itself however contra-egalitarian idealization about how public institutions work they are seized by those with wealth + power. Private entities can make tremendous profits that dwarf those in the market via lobbying; public officials must submit or doom their chances of getting elected(they must generate political capital). It seems to become a recursive + feedback mechanism. The state becomes non-egalitarian by it's very nature.

[oiuoiu988]

@rayyf69

well i dont think the state becomes a market as much as a market emerges for state action, but i can see what youre saying. dwarf those in the market?? im not sure what you mean by that... and dont feel bad for the public officials that "must submit" i'm pretty sure the corporations make it worth their while.

[GreenFiles]

I love the tool who says "I'll pay $2 to keep this going"

[kamerakevin]

In most developed countries, lobbying is also known as bribery. However, it is completely legal in the U.S. Hmmm...

[oiuoiu988]

@kamerakevin

bribery is what happens WHEN you outlaw lobbying. that doesn't solve the problem. making something illegal doesnt make it stop happening.

[Radeo]

@oiuoiu988

no need for lobbying to be outlawed. just put politicians in a position where they can no longer give out special interest favours, i.e., uphold a separation between trade and state.

[oiuoiu988]

@Radeo

thats impossible. you cannot give people power while also limiting their ability to distribute it. you must abolish the state entirely to avoid this government failure.

[Radeo]

@oiuoiu988

of course you can. it happens everyday in the private sector. The difference is that in government the power is a coercive one, as opposed to an economic one, which is all the more reason why it should be objectively limited by clearly defined laws, i.e., by a constitution. This is what the United States was like up until about 1913.

that some politicians may attempt to abuse political force, doesn't change the nature of what ought to be upheld.

[oiuoiu988]

@Radeo

so do you wish to pretend the constitution or some laws were successful in limiting government or are you ready to face the obvious conclusion that it is an impossibility? the american experiment in limited government has failed. lets move on and learn from it. whatever you think ought to be upheld would be upheld just fine without the government if people generally agree with your preferences. law necessarily pre-dates government.

coercive as opposed to voluntary.

[Radeo]

@oiuoiu988

yeah i knew that statement was coming.

but it doesn't follow to throw everything away, what follows is to amend and alter the wording of what was abused.

that's what helps, but ultimately the support of political power lusting is a cultural issue, which no set of laws, government related or not, can alter.

[Radeo]

@oiuoiu988

i.e, A constitution can't survive indefinitely in the face of unlimited irrationality by citizens, no matter how well defined.

but in an anarchist form of social relations, this culture only turns to brute force instead of political force, So even we agreed on the abolition of government, one would have to advocate a cultural revolution first...but if that took place, the power lusters would be in the minority and limited government would be desirable over anarchy.

[oiuoiu988]

@Radeo

@Radeo

from the statement that it is impossible to limit government, follows the logical conclusion that we ought not to have government. thats pretty simple. what im arguing here is that it is impossible to limit government. your last statement(in your 1st comment) only weakens your argument.

unlimited irrationality? what does that even mean? rationality is humans employing means to pursue ends, not humans using means to pursue your personal preference.

[oiuoiu988]

your brute force argument is applicable to a more primitive psycho-class, i.e., america 200 years ago or africa now. but it only applies slightly even to that. if there was no state, violent crime would be much lower for a littany of reasons but i'll list a few

1. there would be no victimless crime laws so law enforcement agencies would have much more time to investigate real crimes.

2. humans are better off cooperating with each other, see; nash equilibrium.

3. there would be no system to game

[oiuoiu988]

(cont)

the most violent criminals would be absolutely ostricized from a stateless society but in a state, all they have to do is game the system, if they lose the game they do their time and come right back into society like nothing ever happened. i live in a very nice neighborhood in the nw suburbs of chicago and a guy who murdered and sexually abused a toddler in 1981 lives across the street from me.

[oiuoiu988]

please define the role of "limited government" and explain why those things would be better provided by the state(coercive action) than private actors(voluntary action).

do you believe in market failures?