Meritocracy doesn't have to be on an individual base. Allowing groups some autonomy combined with NAP among groups can improve NAP among individuals within many groups. Is it?
We allow kids to be rich just because their parents are rich. Here, families are groups that took care of each other. We shouldn't care too much if some parents spank their child.
Shareholders get rich because their companies get up or down collectively.
The United States is richer because of they, collectively as a nation, wiser.
The idea is to divide individuals into families or nations or citizens or villages or group and arrange those groups don't excessively harm other groups while allowing those groups to have more autonomy inward.
A city can legalize gambling or stealing or drugs. Unwise decisions will hurt residents in the city so the residents will pick what's wise.
The only thing we need to concern is if the cities produce too many poor people it can export to other cities. That's what I mean.
Is this good for libertarianism?
It depends. On principles, there are things libertarians may not like. For example, libertarians are usually individualists. Also, why should a smart productive individual in Venezuela suffer because of their evil state while a lazy Americans prosper?
However, competition among nations motivates most countries to be more libertarian. It is precisely because Americans prosper and Venezuelan are poor that citizens of every other country want to be more like Americans. Americans, after all, are more libertarians than Venezuelans.
Also, it's not that bad. The smart and productive in Venezuela can go somewhere else. They can then pull out their families.
NAP among nations is more practical than NAP between individuals. Individuals are so weak compared to the states expecting governments not to tax us is difficult.
However, nations are reasonably powerful compared to the world's government. We don't even have the world's government. So NAP among nations is quite good. NAP among individuals is then achieved by smart people moving to libertarian countries.
It's simply more practical to pursue NAP among nations, cities, or provinces first than NAP among individuals right away.
It'll help resolve issues like abortion. Again the mom chooses whether they abort their babies or not. We can consider families as a group. Then abortion is like in group harm that we shouldn't care.
Or what about the legalization of prostitution and drugs? Instead of insisting that it should be legal everywhere, we realize that each state/provinces/cities should have the autonomy to decides that.
Let each city decide. Denver, Colorado decides to legalizes mushroom. I am sure their citizens will prosper due to those decisions. Then other cities will follow. So, libertarian goals, namely legalization of drugs, happen due to a bit of statism, namely the idea that cities can decide what's legal or not legal.
What happens if cities criminalize Kentucky fried chicken? Don't worry. The citizens as a group will suffer, and individuals can go out. The cities will change their decisions, and those decisions are not popular.
This doesn't look like straight forward libertarians. However, we can't force every group to be libertarians with each other. We just need to ensure that every group practices NAP between the groups. Then see the rules that show up between the groups. I think it'll be quite close to libertarians.
The only important right we need is to ensure that each can detach itself from its group. In other words, we don't even need the right to immigrate. Every nation can refuse any person they wish. We just need to the right to emigrate. As long as nations cannot prevent their valuable citizens from getting out, they have to compete.
Every company can refuse any employee but they cannot prevent employees from living right.
So the way it works, it's already close to the way our current world works.
Some notable exceptions
Traveling stupid voters problems and breeding voters problems
In traveling stupid voters problems, a city can make bad policies produces poverty in societies and travel to other cities.
Example: People in middle east waging war and then go to Europe and then demanding syariah. Now, this is one of the things where "pure libertarianism" with its open border policy may lead to less libertarianism overall.
Another is breeding stupid voters' problem. Say some cities disallow abortion and give too much welfare. They breed dumb welfare parasites that then vote for bigger welfare. Here, we should treat the family as a unit. The children of someone productive deserve more than the children of welfare parasites.
It's not an individual base. The children of someone productive will have more chances in life due to the merit of their family, not their individual merit. After all, the children are just born. They have no merit yet. However, it leads to some libertarian goals like less tax and less welfare.
Again, family/gene-based meritocracy would fix this. Each child born out of welfare parasite does not have the same right with a child born out of positively contributing citizens.
We allow kids to be rich just because their parents are rich. Here, families are groups that took care of each other. We shouldn't care too much if some parents spank their child.
Shareholders get rich because their companies get up or down collectively.
The United States is richer because of they, collectively as a nation, wiser.
The idea is to divide individuals into families or nations or citizens or villages or group and arrange those groups don't excessively harm other groups while allowing those groups to have more autonomy inward.
A city can legalize gambling or stealing or drugs. Unwise decisions will hurt residents in the city so the residents will pick what's wise.
The only thing we need to concern is if the cities produce too many poor people it can export to other cities. That's what I mean.
Is this good for libertarianism?
It depends. On principles, there are things libertarians may not like. For example, libertarians are usually individualists. Also, why should a smart productive individual in Venezuela suffer because of their evil state while a lazy Americans prosper?
However, competition among nations motivates most countries to be more libertarian. It is precisely because Americans prosper and Venezuelan are poor that citizens of every other country want to be more like Americans. Americans, after all, are more libertarians than Venezuelans.
Also, it's not that bad. The smart and productive in Venezuela can go somewhere else. They can then pull out their families.
NAP among nations is more practical than NAP between individuals. Individuals are so weak compared to the states expecting governments not to tax us is difficult.
However, nations are reasonably powerful compared to the world's government. We don't even have the world's government. So NAP among nations is quite good. NAP among individuals is then achieved by smart people moving to libertarian countries.
It's simply more practical to pursue NAP among nations, cities, or provinces first than NAP among individuals right away.
It'll help resolve issues like abortion. Again the mom chooses whether they abort their babies or not. We can consider families as a group. Then abortion is like in group harm that we shouldn't care.
Or what about the legalization of prostitution and drugs? Instead of insisting that it should be legal everywhere, we realize that each state/provinces/cities should have the autonomy to decides that.
Let each city decide. Denver, Colorado decides to legalizes mushroom. I am sure their citizens will prosper due to those decisions. Then other cities will follow. So, libertarian goals, namely legalization of drugs, happen due to a bit of statism, namely the idea that cities can decide what's legal or not legal.
What happens if cities criminalize Kentucky fried chicken? Don't worry. The citizens as a group will suffer, and individuals can go out. The cities will change their decisions, and those decisions are not popular.
This doesn't look like straight forward libertarians. However, we can't force every group to be libertarians with each other. We just need to ensure that every group practices NAP between the groups. Then see the rules that show up between the groups. I think it'll be quite close to libertarians.
The only important right we need is to ensure that each can detach itself from its group. In other words, we don't even need the right to immigrate. Every nation can refuse any person they wish. We just need to the right to emigrate. As long as nations cannot prevent their valuable citizens from getting out, they have to compete.
Every company can refuse any employee but they cannot prevent employees from living right.
So the way it works, it's already close to the way our current world works.
Some notable exceptions
Traveling stupid voters problems and breeding voters problems
In traveling stupid voters problems, a city can make bad policies produces poverty in societies and travel to other cities.
Example: People in middle east waging war and then go to Europe and then demanding syariah. Now, this is one of the things where "pure libertarianism" with its open border policy may lead to less libertarianism overall.
Another is breeding stupid voters' problem. Say some cities disallow abortion and give too much welfare. They breed dumb welfare parasites that then vote for bigger welfare. Here, we should treat the family as a unit. The children of someone productive deserve more than the children of welfare parasites.
It's not an individual base. The children of someone productive will have more chances in life due to the merit of their family, not their individual merit. After all, the children are just born. They have no merit yet. However, it leads to some libertarian goals like less tax and less welfare.
Again, family/gene-based meritocracy would fix this. Each child born out of welfare parasite does not have the same right with a child born out of positively contributing citizens.
