I can't theoretically put my finger on it, either, but one antipattern that often shows up is a focussed minority with high incentives to pilfer from a larger m

I can't theoretically put my finger on it, either, but one antipattern that often shows up is a focussed minority with high incentives to pilfer from a larger majority, at the net expense of society. An example being corruption, where one person might make small gains, at a much larger total cost to society. That cost, however, is amortised over even more people, leaving nobody sufficiently incentivised to fight it. This pattern is everywhere. NRA, mining companies' low cost rights to minerals, NIMBYs... Concretely: > Rather than getting all swoony about ALEC, wouldn't it make more sense just to fund more countervailing model legislation? There is less money there, and money is what drives people to go above and beyond. Good people (aka most people) will play the game as best they can. Incentivised people, will change the game to win. It's a different mentality, you can't expect them to compete. This is an inherent weakness in democracy as I know it, and lobbying is an incredibly powerful tool in the hands of these groups. The only moderating factors I know of are class action lawsuits, and the ombudsman. And now Twitter, for all its faults. But are they separable? Can you get one without the other? I'm not clear on this, yet. (not trying to make a judgement call on alec specifically, just going off of TFA here)