As Moldbug points out, the current US Govcorp is structured as an employee collective[1][2], which no competitive corporation chooses as a system of organization in the free market. As Mancur Olson points out, bureaucracies tend to get more inefficient over time[3].
I know we've all been raised to believe that democracy is love and rainbows, but maybe it's time to rethink that.
[1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-whe...
[2] http://foseti.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/on-government-employm...
[3] http://www.amazon.com/The-Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation/d...
It explains this phenomenon. Basically, for a group of size n, members only get 1/n of the value they contribute towards any collective goal, so noone bothers, unless coerced, like with unions.
the article was tl;dr. did they at least cite mancur olsen for the stationary bandit hypothesis? AFAIK it originated in his book the rise and decline of nations:
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigid...
The lobbiest advantage is that they can afford to raise money quickly and be able to focus it on specific issues.
Although every citizen can together raise a ton of money, once that money is raised it will be very difficult allocating it.
Imagine if people had to come together in order to raise money for museums rather than relying on large individual contributions. It's likely that many fewer museums would exist.
For a deeper look at this I recommend reading the book by Mancur Olson - The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. It takes a look at special interest groups and their effects on economic growth.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigid...