Libertarians want small government. I agree.
However, demanding smaller government through “reason” is not practical, not convincing, and in a sense, not fair.
It’s like deciding who win a race through “argument”. No. You let them run you see who come first place.
Instead, we should embrace localized statism. Let local governments over the small area have owners, and let the voters be the initial “owners”.
In general, Coase theorem says that if ownership is clear, resources allocation will be optimal. So we should make owners of the state clear.
Owners are voters with the right to buy and sell ownership/voting right. So voters with an extra right. It’s toward the best of interest of voters to give an extra right to themselves so this can be achieved democratically.
The small state can keep being democratic. Just ensure that 90%-99% of shares/voting right belong to resident and only 1%-10% for speculators or investors. However, this is optional.
Let them govern as they wish. See which one works.
I am a libertarian for big states but can tolerate stat-ism for local governments.
The result will be more libertarian and capitalistic compared to normal democracy.
Those who don't like it can go somewhere else. For example, say a small city build a church. Say it attracts lots of Christians to come here. Then an atheist owner will still be benefited. That's because the value of his share go up. He can go to other place and sell his share.
Tax will be more sensible. In normal democracy tax is often raised to prevent people from getting rich and not really to collect funds. That's why we have highly inefficient income taxes. With local statism, owners have an incentive to bring taxpayers to the state and hence will charge sensible taxes that maximize government revenue with minimal costs for "customers"/taxpayers.
Drugs will be taxed and legalized. It's a profitable thing to do
However, demanding smaller government through “reason” is not practical, not convincing, and in a sense, not fair.
It’s like deciding who win a race through “argument”. No. You let them run you see who come first place.
Instead, we should embrace localized statism. Let local governments over the small area have owners, and let the voters be the initial “owners”.
In general, Coase theorem says that if ownership is clear, resources allocation will be optimal. So we should make owners of the state clear.
Owners are voters with the right to buy and sell ownership/voting right. So voters with an extra right. It’s toward the best of interest of voters to give an extra right to themselves so this can be achieved democratically.
The small state can keep being democratic. Just ensure that 90%-99% of shares/voting right belong to resident and only 1%-10% for speculators or investors. However, this is optional.
Let them govern as they wish. See which one works.
I am a libertarian for big states but can tolerate stat-ism for local governments.
The result will be more libertarian and capitalistic compared to normal democracy.
Those who don't like it can go somewhere else. For example, say a small city build a church. Say it attracts lots of Christians to come here. Then an atheist owner will still be benefited. That's because the value of his share go up. He can go to other place and sell his share.
Tax will be more sensible. In normal democracy tax is often raised to prevent people from getting rich and not really to collect funds. That's why we have highly inefficient income taxes. With local statism, owners have an incentive to bring taxpayers to the state and hence will charge sensible taxes that maximize government revenue with minimal costs for "customers"/taxpayers.
Drugs will be taxed and legalized. It's a profitable thing to do
Last edited:
