Public vs Private System of Representation

[Xerographica]

What if Elena was a money lender that used societies limited resources to game the system and accrue massive amounts of "positive feedback"?

Elena then chooses to spend this massive amount of positive feedback to make sure that laws on money lending are favourable to her.

Then we have a runaway cycle of positive feedback that continues until the only profitable enterprise is to lend money like Elena.

Laws can be helpful...or they can be hurtful.  In order to ensure that our laws provide the maximum benefit...we have to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.  How they spend their taxes will reflect exactly how much benefit they derive from a law.

Let's take environmental protection for example.  If people want their river to be clean and free of pollution...then they'll pay the EPA to enforce the laws that protects their river.  

See...the hard part to conceptualize is the idea of resources flowing.  Any resources can flow in many different directions...and no two directions will create the same exact amount of value.  The only way to know which directions resources should flow is to allow people to communicate exactly how much they value the different uses of society's limited resources.  

If we allow people to shop for themselves in the public sector...their direct input will determine which direction society's limited resources should flow to.  If people want more conservation...then they'll spend more taxes on protecting the environment.  If people want more development...then they'll spend more taxes on the infrastructure that businesses need to thrive and expand...roads, bridges, ports, airports and so on.    

But if you imagine people shopping for themselves in the public sector...they aren't all going to put the same public goods in their shopping carts.  This is because we're all in the same different boat.  We all need defense...but we don't necessarily agree on the best way to ensure our safety.  And rather than forcing people to spend their money on one approach...it's better to allow people to debate each other and decide for themselves which basket they put their eggs in.  

The future is always uncertain...because nobody has a crystal ball it's essential that we hedge our bets by allowing people to go their own ways.  

The people in the bible laughed at Noah...but they didn't stop him from building and boarding his boat.  Of course it's just a story but the concept is true and timeless.  If we created a market in the public sector...you're going to disagree with how some people spend their taxes.  But it's essential that you recognize the value of their freedom to spend their taxes according to their own perspectives.  And you do this by recognizing that it's entirely possible that they are right and you are wrong.

This right here is the market.  I'm presenting my case that my course is correct.  If my logic makes sense to you...then you board my boat.  If it doesn't...then you stay on your own boat and continue on your own course.  

But your course wasn't determined by sound logic.  It was determined by some barons who were fed up with the king spending all their taxes on war after war.  So they took the power of the purse from him.  And he only had the power of the purse in the first place because people believed he had divine authority.  

Transferring the power of the purse from one person to a few people was a significant course correction...and it will be an even more significant course correction when we transfer the power of the purse from a few people to a multitude of people.  It will happen eventually...hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.  It would be pretty epic if you can say that you helped change the course of history for better.

[Plu]

It will happen eventually...hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.

It's already happening. That's why the US is going down the drain. Rich people buy politicians, and thus basically have the freedom to shop for themselves in the government. Poor people don't have money to shop anyway, so implementing your system wouldn't change this.

[Jason78]

What if Elena was a money lender that used societies limited resources to game the system and accrue massive amounts of "positive feedback"?

Elena then chooses to spend this massive amount of positive feedback to make sure that laws on money lending are favourable to her.

Then we have a runaway cycle of positive feedback that continues until the only profitable enterprise is to lend money like Elena.

Laws can be helpful...or they can be hurtful.  In order to ensure that our laws provide the maximum benefit...we have to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.  How they spend their taxes will reflect exactly how much benefit they derive from a law.

Let's take environmental protection for example.  If people want their river to be clean and free of pollution...then they'll pay the EPA to enforce the laws that protects their river.  

See...the hard part to conceptualize is the idea of resources flowing.  Any resources can flow in many different directions...and no two directions will create the same exact amount of value.  The only way to know which directions resources should flow is to allow people to communicate exactly how much they value the different uses of society's limited resources.  

If we allow people to shop for themselves in the public sector...their direct input will determine which direction society's limited resources should flow to.  If people want more conservation...then they'll spend more taxes on protecting the environment.  If people want more development...then they'll spend more taxes on the infrastructure that businesses need to thrive and expand...roads, bridges, ports, airports and so on.    

But if you imagine people shopping for themselves in the public sector...they aren't all going to put the same public goods in their shopping carts.  This is because we're all in the same different boat.  We all need defense...but we don't necessarily agree on the best way to ensure our safety.  And rather than forcing people to spend their money on one approach...it's better to allow people to debate each other and decide for themselves which basket they put their eggs in.  

The future is always uncertain...because nobody has a crystal ball it's essential that we hedge our bets by allowing people to go their own ways.  

The people in the bible laughed at Noah...but they didn't stop him from building and boarding his boat.  Of course it's just a story but the concept is true and timeless.  If we created a market in the public sector...you're going to disagree with how some people spend their taxes.  But it's essential that you recognize the value of their freedom to spend their taxes according to their own perspectives.  And you do this by recognizing that it's entirely possible that they are right and you are wrong.

This right here is the market.  I'm presenting my case that my course is correct.  If my logic makes sense to you...then you board my boat.  If it doesn't...then you stay on your own boat and continue on your own course.  

But your course wasn't determined by sound logic.  It was determined by some barons who were fed up with the king spending all their taxes on war after war.  So they took the power of the purse from him.  And he only had the power of the purse in the first place because people believed he had divine authority.  

Transferring the power of the purse from one person to a few people was a significant course correction...and it will be an even more significant course correction when we transfer the power of the purse from a few people to a multitude of people.  It will happen eventually...hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.  It would be pretty epic if you can say that you helped change the course of history for better.

That still doesn't explain how your system would avoid the problem of people with a disproportionate amount of influence from stacking the odds in their favour.

[Xerographica]

That still doesn't explain how your system would avoid the problem of people with a disproportionate amount of influence from stacking the odds in their favour.

If a disproportionate amount of influence would be a serious problem then it should be really easy for you to name some names.  

What about Elena?  Would she have a disproportionate amount of influence?  You know who's partly to blame?  I am.  You know why?  Because I give her my money.  

What about Jeff Bezos?  Same thing...I'm partly to blame because I give him my money.  

I don't randomly or evenly distribute my money.  I try and discriminate as much as possible.  I only give my money to people who are protecting my interests.  Because the alternative sure wouldn't make any sense.  

The thing is...there other people who have the same interests that I do.  I'm not the only one who likes a great Greek Salad.  Nor am I the only one who appreciates the convenience of shopping from home.  I am definitely not the only person who buys things on Amazon.  

So, the amount of influence that Elena and Bezos would have in the public sector would be determined by the amount of people they represent.  Bezos represents a lot of people so it's only natural that he should have considerable influence in the public sector.  And if you don't want him to have that much influence...then feel free to stop shopping on Amazon.

If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector...how much money would Elizabeth Warren receive?  Maybe more than Elena but not as much as Bezos?  Which congressperson would receive the most money?  Which congressperson would receive the least money?

[Jason78]

If a disproportionate amount of influence would be a serious problem then it should be really easy for you to name some names.  

Let's take Microsoft as an example.  There's a company that under your system would have had a huge disproportionate amount of influence on not only the market but the government as well.  Who would be interested enough and have enough dollar-votes to tell them "No."?

After all, where else are people going to be able to buy an operating system that will run popular applications?

Even since the Microsoft Anti-Trust case (which would have never happened under the system you're advocating), the market for operating systems still hasn't fixed itself.  

What about Jeff Bezos?

That guy behind the Amazon price fixing scandal?   Are you agreeing with me on the point that a disproportionate amount of influence would actually be a serious problem?

So, the amount of influence that Elena and Bezos would have in the public sector would be determined by the amount of people they represent. Bezos represents a lot of people so it's only natural that he should have considerable influence in the public sector. And if you don't want him to have that much influence...then feel free to stop shopping on Amazon.

If it gets to the point where the only place to buy food is one of Elena's greek salad restaurants, then Elena doesn't represent me does she?   My only choices then are to either give Elena my money (and give her whatever she asks for, because I've got nowhere else to go) or starve.

I can't control what other people do, so it doesn't matter one whit to Bezos whether I shop at his store or not.   He's still practically got the same amount of influence at the end of the day.  The only way to mount a defence against him would be to find a way to make more money than him.  

If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector...how much money would Elizabeth Warren receive? Maybe more than Elena but not as much as Bezos? Which congressperson would receive the most money? Which congressperson would receive the least money?

Why would any congressperson receive any money from me?  The pennies that I could contribute would be lost amongst the pounds that the CEO of a huge organisation could throw at them.

[barbarian]

Representative democracy is absurd? You think capitalistic chaos is logical? You can't be serious!

If we implemented pragmatarianism...congress would still be there.  So you could still give all your money to your elected representative.  Which congressperson would you give your taxes to?  

What's chaotic about this?  I'm an entrepreneur.  I created this thread and you've been buying it with your time.  You're free to stop buying it at any time.  Nobody is forcing you to spend your time here.  You're welcome to spend your time on any other thread.  The choice is yours.  It's up to you what you put in your shopping cart.  

We do not need to implement this at all, as it is already available to you. There is always going to be certain things that you don't feel your tax payer money should go to. The big picture is that you can take your self taxation dollars and stick them in any shopping cart already. This is called charitable deduction (I can get you to the tax experts to explain this further if needed,) the best part is if you can not afford to pay this tax you are under no obligation to pay it. We need to limit this also otherwise schmucks like Wilfred (Mittens) Romney would just give all of his "taxes" to the Mormon Church, which by the way Mittens most likely had less of a tax obligation in one year than you had over the past decade. Meanwhile, freed up more money he could give to some church that I would never really call charitable. Any money you want to chuck at a representative to get elected is over the top and outside of any tax obligations that you may have acquired in the capitalistic market that we enjoy. So, if you got the extra funds you can still give more of you hard earned money to them and hope they win and then remember you after they are there. So in essence you can not only decide what you are going to put in your shopping cart but if you want to upgrade your shopping cart with the shot bearings and the flat spot on one wheel you have that choice too, already.

[mykcob4]

What if Elena was a money lender that used societies limited resources to game the system and accrue massive amounts of "positive feedback"?

Elena then chooses to spend this massive amount of positive feedback to make sure that laws on money lending are favourable to her.

Then we have a runaway cycle of positive feedback that continues until the only profitable enterprise is to lend money like Elena.

Laws can be helpful...or they can be hurtful.  In order to ensure that our laws provide the maximum benefit...we have to allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.  How they spend their taxes will reflect exactly how much benefit they derive from a law.

Let's take environmental protection for example.  If people want their river to be clean and free of pollution...then they'll pay the EPA to enforce the laws that protects their river.  

See...the hard part to conceptualize is the idea of resources flowing.  Any resources can flow in many different directions...and no two directions will create the same exact amount of value.  The only way to know which directions resources should flow is to allow people to communicate exactly how much they value the different uses of society's limited resources.  

If we allow people to shop for themselves in the public sector...their direct input will determine which direction society's limited resources should flow to.  If people want more conservation...then they'll spend more taxes on protecting the environment.  If people want more development...then they'll spend more taxes on the infrastructure that businesses need to thrive and expand...roads, bridges, ports, airports and so on.    

But if you imagine people shopping for themselves in the public sector...they aren't all going to put the same public goods in their shopping carts.  This is because we're all in the same different boat.  We all need defense...but we don't necessarily agree on the best way to ensure our safety.  And rather than forcing people to spend their money on one approach...it's better to allow people to debate each other and decide for themselves which basket they put their eggs in.  

The future is always uncertain...because nobody has a crystal ball it's essential that we hedge our bets by allowing people to go their own ways.  

The people in the bible laughed at Noah...but they didn't stop him from building and boarding his boat.  Of course it's just a story but the concept is true and timeless.  If we created a market in the public sector...you're going to disagree with how some people spend their taxes.  But it's essential that you recognize the value of their freedom to spend their taxes according to their own perspectives.  And you do this by recognizing that it's entirely possible that they are right and you are wrong.

This right here is the market.  I'm presenting my case that my course is correct.  If my logic makes sense to you...then you board my boat.  If it doesn't...then you stay on your own boat and continue on your own course.  

But your course wasn't determined by sound logic.  It was determined by some barons who were fed up with the king spending all their taxes on war after war.  So they took the power of the purse from him.  And he only had the power of the purse in the first place because people believed he had divine authority.  

Transferring the power of the purse from one person to a few people was a significant course correction...and it will be an even more significant course correction when we transfer the power of the purse from a few people to a multitude of people.  It will happen eventually...hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.  It would be pretty epic if you can say that you helped change the course of history for better.

Blah blah blah....same republican rhetoric. It's a scam to allow the rich to explot everyone else and get out of necessary regulations. Its propaganda to end unions, regulation and every protection from the corrupt. Piecemilling taxes is essentially leting the corrupt dictate everything. It's "bull----er uh rhetoric"!

[Xerographica]

Let's take Microsoft as an example.

Your argument doesn't make any sense.  In a pragmatarian system...taxpayers wouldn't have given ANY money to the government to go after Microsoft?  I think you must be omniscient if you're going to say with any certainty A. what the actual demand would have been and B. that this was the best possible use of society's limited resources.  

Evidently you think it's important for there to be more operating systems.  So rather than spending millions on attacking Microsoft...wouldn't it have made more sense to spend those tax dollars on developing a new operating system?  

How difficult is it to develop a new operating system?  If you're going to argue that it's extremely difficult, costly and risky to do...then why attack Bill Gates for successfully accomplishing a Herculean task?  If you're going to argue that it's easy and inexpensive to do...then why waste resources attacking Bill Gates?  

Bill Gates used his wealth to create barriers to entry...and our government used its wealth to engage in several wars...the war on drugs...the war on terror...the war on poverty.  

If it's not worth your effort to boycott Bill Gates...then your actions clearly indicate that you think he's doing more good than harm.  

The moral of the story is...nobody has a crystal ball.  One year the government spends $300 million dollars going after Microsoft...and the next year Google could have made Windows Operating system obsolete.  Yet, here you are with such certainty that it was such a great use of society's limited resources to attack Microsoft.  How can you be so certain that all that money couldn't have been better spent on other public goods?  How can you be so certain that it was the most important priority?  

I'm so certain that tax choice is the correct answer that I'm going to bet your money on it.  And I'm going to skip the part where I persuade you to give it to me.  Woah!  Doesn't that sound insane?  Yet, that's exactly what you support and advocate and defend.    You don't want the government to persuade us to spend our tax dollars on attacking Microsoft.  You don't want the government to persuade us to spend our tax dollars on attacking other countries.  You don't want the government to persuade us to spend our tax dollars on attacking atheists.  Because, the government is god!  

No, there's no god...the government is man...and man is fallible.  Therefore, let's give people the opportunity to doubt...and allocate their taxes accordingly.  

If atheists can't appreciate the value of doubt...then who can?

[Plu]

I keep forgetting that Xero's system is best because whatever the outcome of it is, is the best outcome, because his system is best. It's cyclical reasoning at its finest.

[Jason78]

Bill Gates used his wealth to create barriers to entry...and our government used its wealth to engage in several wars...the war on drugs...the war on terror...the war on poverty.  

If it's not worth your effort to boycott Bill Gates...then your actions clearly indicate that you think he's doing more good than harm.  

I'm unable to kill every greenfly on my cabbage patch.   That doesn't mean that I believe in what the greenfly are doing and support their cause.  My available actions have nothing to do with what I'm thinking.

The reason I picked Bill Gates, is because he's presided over a huge monopoly, and he's got a net wealth of something larger than the GDP of most nations.  I could allocate my entire earnings towards bringing him to justice, but it wouldn't do any good.  He'd be able to outspend me at every turn.

The moral of the story is...nobody has a crystal ball. One year the government spends $300 million dollars going after Microsoft...and the next year Google could have made Windows Operating system obsolete.

You don't need a crystal ball when you've got enough money to rig the game.  Google would never get a chance to make Windows obsolete, because Bill could just pop down to congress, drop a couple of billion votes to make sure that operating systems that aren't windows are illegal, and he can continue raking in money.

You've got to continue supporting him with your limited resources, because you need his product, and where else are you going to buy it from?  Google?  

Eventually, Bill has 95% of all the money, and his voice is the only opinion that matters.   And thanks to the fact that the rest us have to share the remaining 5% between us, Bill can fuck us all over any time he chooses.  Even all of us remaining voted with all of our money.

[Xerographica]

I'm unable to kill every greenfly on my cabbage patch.   That doesn't mean that I believe in what the greenfly are doing and support their cause.  My available actions have nothing to do with what I'm thinking.

Why aren't you able to kill every greenfly on your cabbage patch?  You aren't smart enough?  Or you don't have enough time?  Are you going to die next week or something?  

Markets work because you can ask yourself whether a given course of action is more valuable than the alternative courses of action.  "Hmmm...I can sit here for three hours killing every greenfly on my cabbage patch...or I can go protect the world from the views of that crazy Xero guy."  This is the opportunity cost concept.

Without your direct input...without your freedom to choose what or who you make your sacrifices to...it's a given that the output will not be as valuable.  How can the allocation of society's limited resources provide the maximum value possible when you're not able to spend your limited time/money according to your preferences?  

Eventually, Bill has 95% of all the money, and his voice is the only opinion that matters.   And thanks to the fact that the rest us have to share the remaining 5% between us, Bill can fuck us all over any time he chooses.  Even all of us remaining voted with all of our money.

Seriously guy?  LOL  This is so ridiculous.  If you and I went to the grocery store...do you think we'd put the same exact items in our shopping carts?  

Yet what would happen if taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector?  You think Gates and Bezos are going to put all the same exact public goods in their shopping carts?  You think they are going to want to fuck us in exactly the same way?  

Why don't you think that they'd want to fuck each other?  Do you think that rich people only have hard-ons for the poor?  Why?  How can they possibly extract money from people without any money?  

If Bill Gates takes all our money...then who's Bezos going to fuck?  Himself?  LOL

In all seriousness...please learn something about economics...

In buying the resources needed to produce any one good, an entrepreneur has succeeded in competing away these resources from other possible uses.  When a producer, not enjoying protection against competitive entry, finds himself as sole producer he still has to worry about the activities of competing entrepreneurs. They are channeling their energies and their alertness into producing <i>other</i> products, which are competing for consumers' attention also.  Inter-product competition will not guarantee horizontal demand curves facing each producer.  But it offers assurance that errors made in the identification of the most urgently needed consumer products (and/or of the most easily accessible resources) will tend rapidly to be noticed and exploited by alert, competing entrepreneurs. - Israel M. Kirzner, How Markets Work

Now, here's the irony.  Why did you think it was a good thing for the government to go after Microsoft?  Because Bill Gates bundled his products with computers.  Yet, what the fuck do you think the government does?   THE GOVERNMENT BUNDLES EVERY FUCKING SINGLE PRODUCT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR TOGETHER.  It bundles environmental protection with the war on drugs with the war on terror with public healthcare with welfare with...all the other public goods.  You buy one and the rest are included free of charge!

So please tell me why it's bad for consumers when they voluntarily purchase a computer bundled with Microsoft products but it's A-OK when they are forced to buy a massive random bundle of public goods.

Now Yates seems to be a productive member of society.  He's a bundler...cable, phone, internet.  But I need to know if murder is part of the package. - Dexter

What would you say if your cable company started including murder in their package?  Would you be all for it?  Would it make a lot of sense to you?  Would you sign up immediately?  How about if they also included ladies underwear?  Would that sweeten the deal for you?  "What?  You'll include some dirty granny panties at no extra charge??!  Sign me up ASAP!!"

You think it's a good thing for consumers to be able to pick and choose which products they have included with their computer.  Yet you think it's a terrible idea for consumers to be able to pick and choose which public goods they put in their shopping carts.  Seriously guy?  If unbundling two related products would be good for consumers...then unbundling an entire sector's worth of very unrelated products would be orgasmic for consumers.

[Jason78]

I'm unable to kill every greenfly on my cabbage patch.   That doesn't mean that I believe in what the greenfly are doing and support their cause.  My available actions have nothing to do with what I'm thinking.

Why aren't you able to kill every greenfly on your cabbage patch?  You aren't smart enough?  Or you don't have enough time?  Are you going to die next week or something?  

Markets work because you can ask yourself whether a given course of action is more valuable than the alternative courses of action.  "Hmmm...I can sit here for three hours killing every greenfly on my cabbage patch...or I can go protect the world from the views of that crazy Xero guy."  This is the opportunity cost concept.

Without your direct input...without your freedom to choose what or who you make your sacrifices to...it's a given that the output will not be as valuable.  How can the allocation of society's limited resources provide the maximum value possible when you're not able to spend your limited time/money according to your preferences?  

Eventually, Bill has 95% of all the money, and his voice is the only opinion that matters.   And thanks to the fact that the rest us have to share the remaining 5% between us, Bill can fuck us all over any time he chooses.  Even all of us remaining voted with all of our money.

Seriously guy?  LOL  This is so ridiculous.  If you and I went to the grocery store...do you think we'd put the same exact items in our shopping carts?  

Yet what would happen if taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector?  You think Gates and Bezos are going to put all the same exact public goods in their shopping carts?  You think they are going to want to fuck us in exactly the same way?  


Why don't you think that they'd want to fuck each other?  Do you think that rich people only have hard-ons for the poor?  Why?  How can they possibly extract money from people without any money?  

Like a car thief or a burglar, they are opportunistic and will go for the low hanging fruit.

If Bill Gates takes all our money...then who's Bezos going to fuck?  Himself?  LOL

In all seriousness...please learn something about economics...

I'm trying to.  I'm not sure that I've got a very good teacher though.

In buying the resources needed to produce any one good, an entrepreneur has succeeded in competing away these resources from other possible uses.  When a producer, not enjoying protection against competitive entry, finds himself as sole producer he still has to worry about the activities of competing entrepreneurs. They are channeling their energies and their alertness into producing <i>other</i> products, which are competing for consumers' attention also.  Inter-product competition will not guarantee horizontal demand curves facing each producer.  But it offers assurance that errors made in the identification of the most urgently needed consumer products (and/or of the most easily accessible resources) will tend rapidly to be noticed and exploited by alert, competing entrepreneurs. - Israel M. Kirzner, How Markets Work

Now, here's the irony.  Why did you think it was a good thing for the government to go after Microsoft?  Because Bill Gates bundled his products with computers.  Yet, what the fuck do you think the government does?   THE GOVERNMENT BUNDLES EVERY FUCKING SINGLE PRODUCT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR TOGETHER.  It bundles environmental protection with the war on drugs with the war on terror with public healthcare with welfare with...all the other public goods.  You buy one and the rest are included free of charge!

So please tell me why it's bad for consumers when they voluntarily purchase a computer bundled with Microsoft products but it's A-OK when they are forced to buy a massive random bundle of public goods.

Now Yates seems to be a productive member of society.  He's a bundler...cable, phone, internet.  But I need to know if murder is part of the package. - Dexter

What would you say if your cable company started including murder in their package?  Would you be all for it?  Would it make a lot of sense to you?  Would you sign up immediately?  How about if they also included ladies underwear?  Would that sweeten the deal for you?  "What?  You'll include some dirty granny panties at no extra charge??!  Sign me up ASAP!!"

You think it's a good thing for consumers to be able to pick and choose which products they have included with their computer.  Yet you think it's a terrible idea for consumers to be able to pick and choose which public goods they put in their shopping carts.  Seriously guy?  If unbundling two related products would be good for consumers...then unbundling an entire sector's worth of very unrelated products would be orgasmic for consumers.

I've only really got one option where I live if I want internet access at a decent speed.  They already include packages that I don't want into my cable subscription bundle that I don't want or need.   But it's either pay money to them or go back to dial-up.  So yeah, if they tacked murder onto the deal, I'd probably stay with them.  Because I've got no viable alternative.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

I sense a distaste for Jerry Jones in your post mykcob. Perhaps Jerry will be willing to hug you on the 50 yard line. I can't stand the bastard either, but I no longer live in those parts..
I lived on Rock Island Rd in Irving, roughly half way between old and new stadiums and on Division Rd in Arlington right down the street from Jerryworld. I knew some of the people kicked out when they bulldozed that area.

Those people got screwed by Jerry. Imminent domain only paid them for 80% of market value. After they devalued the area that didn't ammount to much. Most of the people rented and were forced out against their will. It was the biggest land grab in Texas since they kicked out the Comanches! Yeah I hate Jerry for far more than him owning the NFL er uh the Cowboys. He is the most corrupt individual since of Nixon! He manufactured the NFL lockout to try and break the Players Union. Did you know that the NFL is officially listed as a "non-profit"? Yep it's true and yet they pay millions to lobbiest that support conservatives!

Just a nitpick here cause it's a bit misleading fact. The NFL is in fact non-profit, but the teams aren't. It's kind of a circle jerk though, in that the league exists to make the owners money, while also being made up of the owners and their handpicked leaders. The NFL is more like a cartel in practice. Most other pro sports leagues are the same.