comment: >
  
  I specified the kind of lobbyist in discussion was full time and generally working for corporate/private interests over societal.
context: In Denmark a non.compete clause require the employer to pay salary for as long as the clause runs. It tend to limit the use to those few key persons, where there are genuine concerns. >
  
  Exactly. If an employee is vital enough that the employer doesn't want them working for a competitor, they're vital enough to guarantee continued employment. Otherwise the employer is just abusing their imbalance of power to exert control over the employee. >
  
  I believe the free market guy was out buying turnips from that truck in the parking lot. >
  
  I wonder if he has a license to sell turnips >
  
  Of course Jan has a license, he just has to... Go grab it to prove it. >
  
  The only non-compete that should exist is a five year ban on allowing a politician to go work for a lobbying firm. >
  
  And lobbyists going to work as politicians >
  
  What’s a lobbyist then?  Would I be excluded for my work getting funding for pedestrian, bike, and bus routes in my area?
  Would my social worker friends who work for funding for their organizations be banned?
  This is like term limits discussions, it can sound good until you dive in to the details. >
  
  You mistake being a volunteer advocate for a paid lobbyist. Apples & oranges. >
  
  The commenter above never said that work was unpaid, that was an assumption you added.