: Hence one corporate entity seeks to protect its sales of item x by using government to enact regulations against its competitor. Whats the problem? The fact that a government has the power to do this and the worrying apathy people have. Why? because one big company and its 10,000 employees can make a lot of noise. Theirs is the gain if the ruse is pulled off. The cost is to those consumers who might have preferred the competitor and to the competitor itself - diffuse, unrealised costs - what kind of political noise can they make?: Would you fuss over a $million? yes, would you fuss over $0.05? I doubt it. So when everyones taxes go up by 5 cents in order to bag a million for some entity with political pull you can see why they win cant you.
I tend to agree with you. I am not sure whether this is the case in America or not. It is kind of like the banker who takes a few cents from other peoples bank accounts. No one notices a discrepency of a few cents. After a few years of doing this to a lot of customers, the banker could well be in the millions.
: You can make rules like the bill or rights which would proclude this kind of scam, except it was quickly eroded by 'interpretation' and is now largely ignored.
That is why we need a government of laws, not of men. If the laws are objective and not open to interpretation, than you cannot have the numerous loopholes in the legal system as there are now.
: : a handful of people dictating the thoughts and affairs of millions
: Hmm, i never put much stock into the 'masses controlled by the few' theory, there is little useful evidence of it, its popular but counterintuitive (its proponent always exempts himself for the effect, oddly)
I think that a lot of people in government are making small exceptions here and there, justifying themselves by saying "This little bit won't hurt" or "No one will notice." The result is a lot of bureaucrats making a lot of little exceptions and taking advantage of loopholes that have big effects as an aggregate.
