system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I think capitalism favours crony capitalism.

The profit motive under capitalism favours the commodification of politics. Laws, regulations, subsidies, and so on affect the exchange of private property. Politicians therefore are a service that can help private actors in gaining profit. This service can be bought in many forms: bribes, lobbying, donations, vote buying, manipulation of media to convince voters, and others that might've slipped my mind. I'm not saying that every capitalist state is engaged in crony capitalism, but I do think that crony capitalism is favoured in the same way that maximum entropy is favoured in closed systems.

Unfortunately I don't know what would convince me, but because this cmv is theoretical, I will accept theoretical arguments.

Edit:

I want to direct this discussion within the limits of capitalism. I'm not trying to debate which economic system has the least amount of cronyism. It may very well be that capitalism has the least amount of cronyism, but that is a separate view for another thread.

I'd also like to further the chemistry analogy and say that I think that certain political systems can increase the activation energy necessary to get to crony capitalism, but that once the activation energy is achieved, it's crony capitalism that has the most amount of entropy.
gpt
It's not the profit motive under capitalism that motivates and necessitates the people bribing of their government, it's the *government's monopoly of force over economics* that motivates and necessitates the bribes. 

When the Government is acting as King that grants economic favours, when it is by the grace of government that you are allowed certain economic activity and not others, then you must curry favour to thrive and you must court and lobby and bribe.

Crony capitalism is thus a problem caused by the nature of *any* type of government which holds a monopoly of force over economic activity.

The solution is separation of Economy and State (for the same reason we were meant to have separation of Church and State in the USA) protected in some fundamental laws of a Republic (such as the *individual property rights* of it's citizens) that are increasingly  *beyond amendment* by government as a country grows and develops, so that, in a sense, the growing natural complexity of the market acts as a *barrier* to changing those fundamental laws, rather than the growing bureaucracy acting as an *eroder*. The solution is a republic whose initial property laws are both true and just, and increasingly *beyond* amendment by Government!

*Not* having a separation of Economy and State means that  the growing complexity of *government* acts as a force that *erodes* the freedoms, ideals and original laws of a republic. Government power over the economy causes its institutions to ensure their indispensability by using laws that regulate economic activity to *create* citizen reliance and dependency on needing these institutions. And thus they maintain the problems they were designed to solve, justifying their permanence and expansion of powers over more and more of the economy. Eventually the Bureaucracy collapses under its own weight as goes the way of the Byzantines.

Consider separation of Church and State. Fundamentally this separates the State's *use of force* over our *thoughts* - and thus protects our individual right to free speech. We should call it "Separation of State and Thoughts/Beliefs". They can't tell us what to think or say, they are *banned* from using force. And the USA hasn't done too badly! Free speech has been *pretty good* as a result. 

The separation of Economy and State is the separation of the state's use of force over our *actions* - and thus protects our individual right to private property (which is the defining feature of capitalism). They can't tell us what to *do*. The government should be banned from using force to stop us - or interfere even in the slightest - from our economic activity. The government's purpose should *only* be as a body who has the monopoly right of force to act in response to a domestic or foreign citizen initiating force on it's citizens.


Once the government ceases to *control* the economy, no one needs to bribe it; there are no special favours to be gained.