Reddit reviews The Logic of Political Survival (The MIT Press)

Political science/political economy is full of math. One example that utilizes both game theory and statistical analysis: selectorate theory

Even though The Prince is referenced in the book, the book is actually based on this one. It is the more scholarly book that the authors wrote. The Dictators Handbook is the layman version

I found two books, one is basically a book for everyone, https://www.amazon.ca/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511082631&sr=1-1&keywords=the+dictator%27s+handbook and the second is the book that proves the logic of the first with a rather long table of statistics and formal math and even more historical examples, https://www.amazon.ca/Logic-Political-Survival-Bruce-Mesquita/dp/0262524406/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511082675&sr=1-1&keywords=the+logic+of+political+survival.

The logic is sound and consistent. It also importantly for anarchists, affects also other hierarchies like corporations, and even can go into a lot of the discussion on racism, sexism, and similar.

I also like the book for some of the suggestions it offers. It clearly explains that the more liberty, the better, with nearly no limits on how much better the world is when more people contribute, a strong counterargument to claims of say a strong and central state is needed to consolidate something. It also talks about corporations and private institutions, and while he doesn't directly call them co-ops, he does say that democratic companies where the profits are distributed based on a formula or on a public basis improve the world and their own internal governance. And it explains why the more democratic something is, the harder it is to overwhelm it via a coup.

It also gives some ideas on how to fix the whole kaboodle, such as social networking making the profits of executives limited if the average puny shareholder has a platform to discuss and directly vote, escrow account lending and foreign aid, higher education in authoritarian countries, cell phones, and amnesties to those who cede power.

Thoughts?

I realize this is a bit of a read, but I would love to hear your thoughts, I've bolded parts in case you'd want to just look at the main points (not to come across as a jerk!):

No offense, but I've heard multiple people say this and it seems like a stretch. I'm not trying to insult ya or anything, but I'm curious as to why you would think this. Here are my thoughts (broken down into point 1. Trump has been so successful because he values money, why would being president change that? and point 2. American corruption in government has not been in the form of direct monetary compensation for awhile, as you seem to imply, at least not at this level).

First, Trump is rich because he has a strong professional desire to make money. I'm not necessarily claiming he is running for president directly to make money. But to that after becoming president he will immediately stop having a desire for money is absurd.

However (in relation to him running to generate profit), his campaign has allowed him to to live at a high quality for free for the past months. Additionally, he makes tons of money off personal branding. The more he campaigns and drums up support, the more ties, shirts and books he sells. At least in part, this has absolutely been about making money.

Second, professional politicians at the national level very rarely receive direct bribe money in the sense that someone gives them money that goes into their bank account. Other direct benefits do occur, but not to the extent you're implying (nor to the extent Trump would be above). Rather, political actors receive campaign donations. While (much like the Trump example above) this allows them to live somewhat lavishly during campaigns, they do not pocket the extra money.

Instead, campaign contributions help buy them job security. There is a well established and respected political theory known as Selectorate Theory (by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita in this book) that describes this, it is a fascinating read.

Essentially, politicians act in order to maintain their incumbency, not bribes on the side. Thus, they do favors and act in the interest of the "selectorate" that truly holds the power of getting them re-elected– campaign contributors. Trump would not be above this, either.

Do you really think Obama or Bush actually took bribes while in the presidency? Do you think any of the current Republican field would? Hell no. It would get spotted quick as fuck. Rather, they are bribed by political contributions and Trump will be no exception. Here's why:

If he is elected, by convention and logic there will be no primary and the republicans will re-run him; he will be funded by the same Republican mechanisms and donors that have supported the party in past. To maximize their contributions, he will remain beholden to those interests.

You have to look at it politiclly, you I cant explain what changes in warefare and such took place but Mr Sun King managed to increase the number of importent vassels, witch effectivly decressed there power, meaning he was far above them.

Now you can for them to come to you, and they had to, if you did not play the game the king would just start to give away your stuff.

There is good stuff about this by one of the top political sientics Bruce Bueno de Mesquita but Im not sure where (http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Political-Survival-Bruce-Mesquita/dp/0262524406).