Who "owns" a country?
In corporations, the stockholders "own" the corporation. If you have your own business, you pretty much do whatever you like with the business.
However, if you're a manager working for a business, you are not free to uses the business money. You're an "agent", and the owners of the business is the "principal".
Both managers and owners have "power" of the business.
However, the manager "supposedly" manage the business for the benefit of owners or principals. Bribing a manager is an issue. Bribing a business owner is not.
If I come to a business owner and say, buy my widget instead and I'll give you 20% cashback/discount, that's just regular business deal. If I go to his manager and said, buy widget and I give you 20% cash. That's bribery.
An agent taking money from business to his own pocket is stealing.
At least, that's the impression I get.
Now, who owns a country country?
Am I correct to say that in democratic countries, the people "own" the country?
Has this ever been "formalized"?
Does everyone have equal share? Or what?
I know some constitution says that the "ultimate power" belongs to the people. However, nowhere does in my constitution say that the people "own" the country.
If the people do not own the country, why do we have corruption laws? What is wrong with a president using his power to get kickbacks and some voting bloc using his voting power to get welfare?
The latter is considered legitimate but the former is corruption. Both are using their powah to get something that benefit them.
Are there any philosophy or constitution or laws in country that more clearly define who "owns" a country?
Can countries/states be owned by somebody like corporations?
In the past, do king consider themselves as "owners" of a country? What about feudal lords below the king? Nowadays, are democracies "owned" by the people?
Why ownership is important?
Currently, the only way money can influence politic is by lobbying or bribing. Neither is very good. Why not "investing"?
Imagine a desolate poor sparsely populated region.
An investor comes to those people and say, I'll buy your country. I invest $1 billion dollar. All citizens share 10% of the state. We buy all your lands at market price.
I control 90% of the share.
The poor native can vote to see if this is a good idea or not. Say they vote yes.
Now we probably have rules that ensure that the population will not just be slaughtered or enslaved. However, I think making the deal "win win" with original native inhabitants wouldn't be difficult. These are very poor and desolate regions here. Like Syria or Afghanistan. What does the native got to lose anyway? The alternative would be they getting slaughtered by ISIS.
The investor makes a few phone call to Putin or Donald Trump or Xi Jinping, saying that he wants to be a vassal of powerful country for protection in some win win deal.
Now after investor build that country, the investor can legalize weed, drugs, prostitution, and make a libertarian hedonist cruize. Bringing profit to investor.
The country can also go IPO. Getting more investor.
Native inhabitants that don't like it can just sell their share and move somewhere else. Most will like it though and see their stock price going up and up getting dividend.
Those mini states do not have to worry about problems so many states have. Creating jobs? Well, all citizen are shareholders that got dividend. Immigrants are tourists. Want to be citizen? Oh you mean share holders? Yea you buy stocks. Duh....
What jobs to create?
What about rent seeking? In normal states it's a problem. Say someone told the states, give me money and I will benefit the people. Well, which people? There are many voting blocs each having different interests.
Now rent seeking is like private rent seeking. Imagine if you have a house and someone want to stay there. You collect rent right? In typical states, rent seeking is done without creating wealth. Basically someone pays some officials to get special licenses. Now they can pay the corporation straight.
The investor have spent so much on infrastructure and security in that state. So they have a right to get rent seeking. Anyone wants to sell something just apply for license that profit investors.
A state can make certain people happy than making everyone's happy.
Say you live in a democratic country. 50% of the population is muslim. 50% of the population is secular. What's going to happen is some compromise. Oh we have a half secular country.
When states have ownership, this problem can easily solved. Create 2 mini states. One completely secular and another can be whatever. Immigrants are like customers. They go to where they like.
It also address many libertarian issues. Should the state build infrastructure? Well, why not let the CEO and the market decides.
The state/corporation can balance the cost of road with revenue they get from land taxes, for example. If the present value of future land taxes are higher than the cost of land, then go ahead.
Or the state may build infrastructure if and only if the land price (now owned by the state, but private parties can have usufructus right). The land in the state can considered as "assets" for the state.
Let them decide. If tax is too high people go somewhere else. If tax is too low then they're not giving good return to shareholders. The market would balance it out.
Should weed be legal? The state may decide this not based on complex "social cost". Like any companies, the state can simply compute the extra revenue and tourists that come when weed is taxed.
Should the state requires licenses for liquor? For most states, the libertarian answer is no. However, for private ministates owned by investor? No problem. You don't like it you can just not immigrate there.
Unlike hereditary monarchy, the rulers, which can be called CEO or president or whatever will always be competent selected by shareholders.
Just hire smart politician like the one governing qatar, singapore, hong kong, and dubai and we got something going.
While technically states are not "owned" by anyone, most states are run like corporation.
Imagine if a president use his power to enrich himself. We call that corruption. Imagine if some voting blocks uses their voting power to get subsidies or healthcare. We don't call that corruption. We call that serving the people's interests. It's as if the people are owners of the state and the president is agent.
Also look at most benefits for citizens in a state like US
1. If you don't work you get unemployment benefit
2. If you work you get paid more than if you do the same work in poor countries. That's because your government protect you from competition overseas. Those who works pay income taxes.
3. Ethnic groups that are not getting jobs are benefited by affirmative actions.
Yes. US government do not technically give citizenship dividend. However, those 3 things look like they're giving the same money to each citizen. It's as if the benefits are roughly equal for each citizen. When one gets more than the other, the other vote against it.
It seems that the 3 main ways US government benefit their citizens is just a complex way to give dividend to shareholders.
So why not experiment all the way. Create a mini state with owners in say Afganistan. US still handles security and of course got share of that mini state.
See how it goes.
In corporations, the stockholders "own" the corporation. If you have your own business, you pretty much do whatever you like with the business.
However, if you're a manager working for a business, you are not free to uses the business money. You're an "agent", and the owners of the business is the "principal".
Both managers and owners have "power" of the business.
However, the manager "supposedly" manage the business for the benefit of owners or principals. Bribing a manager is an issue. Bribing a business owner is not.
If I come to a business owner and say, buy my widget instead and I'll give you 20% cashback/discount, that's just regular business deal. If I go to his manager and said, buy widget and I give you 20% cash. That's bribery.
An agent taking money from business to his own pocket is stealing.
At least, that's the impression I get.
Now, who owns a country country?
Am I correct to say that in democratic countries, the people "own" the country?
Has this ever been "formalized"?
Does everyone have equal share? Or what?
I know some constitution says that the "ultimate power" belongs to the people. However, nowhere does in my constitution say that the people "own" the country.
If the people do not own the country, why do we have corruption laws? What is wrong with a president using his power to get kickbacks and some voting bloc using his voting power to get welfare?
The latter is considered legitimate but the former is corruption. Both are using their powah to get something that benefit them.
Are there any philosophy or constitution or laws in country that more clearly define who "owns" a country?
Can countries/states be owned by somebody like corporations?
In the past, do king consider themselves as "owners" of a country? What about feudal lords below the king? Nowadays, are democracies "owned" by the people?
Why ownership is important?
Currently, the only way money can influence politic is by lobbying or bribing. Neither is very good. Why not "investing"?
Imagine a desolate poor sparsely populated region.
An investor comes to those people and say, I'll buy your country. I invest $1 billion dollar. All citizens share 10% of the state. We buy all your lands at market price.
I control 90% of the share.
The poor native can vote to see if this is a good idea or not. Say they vote yes.
Now we probably have rules that ensure that the population will not just be slaughtered or enslaved. However, I think making the deal "win win" with original native inhabitants wouldn't be difficult. These are very poor and desolate regions here. Like Syria or Afghanistan. What does the native got to lose anyway? The alternative would be they getting slaughtered by ISIS.
The investor makes a few phone call to Putin or Donald Trump or Xi Jinping, saying that he wants to be a vassal of powerful country for protection in some win win deal.
Now after investor build that country, the investor can legalize weed, drugs, prostitution, and make a libertarian hedonist cruize. Bringing profit to investor.
The country can also go IPO. Getting more investor.
Native inhabitants that don't like it can just sell their share and move somewhere else. Most will like it though and see their stock price going up and up getting dividend.
Those mini states do not have to worry about problems so many states have. Creating jobs? Well, all citizen are shareholders that got dividend. Immigrants are tourists. Want to be citizen? Oh you mean share holders? Yea you buy stocks. Duh....
What jobs to create?
What about rent seeking? In normal states it's a problem. Say someone told the states, give me money and I will benefit the people. Well, which people? There are many voting blocs each having different interests.
Now rent seeking is like private rent seeking. Imagine if you have a house and someone want to stay there. You collect rent right? In typical states, rent seeking is done without creating wealth. Basically someone pays some officials to get special licenses. Now they can pay the corporation straight.
The investor have spent so much on infrastructure and security in that state. So they have a right to get rent seeking. Anyone wants to sell something just apply for license that profit investors.
A state can make certain people happy than making everyone's happy.
Say you live in a democratic country. 50% of the population is muslim. 50% of the population is secular. What's going to happen is some compromise. Oh we have a half secular country.
When states have ownership, this problem can easily solved. Create 2 mini states. One completely secular and another can be whatever. Immigrants are like customers. They go to where they like.
It also address many libertarian issues. Should the state build infrastructure? Well, why not let the CEO and the market decides.
The state/corporation can balance the cost of road with revenue they get from land taxes, for example. If the present value of future land taxes are higher than the cost of land, then go ahead.
Or the state may build infrastructure if and only if the land price (now owned by the state, but private parties can have usufructus right). The land in the state can considered as "assets" for the state.
Let them decide. If tax is too high people go somewhere else. If tax is too low then they're not giving good return to shareholders. The market would balance it out.
Should weed be legal? The state may decide this not based on complex "social cost". Like any companies, the state can simply compute the extra revenue and tourists that come when weed is taxed.
Should the state requires licenses for liquor? For most states, the libertarian answer is no. However, for private ministates owned by investor? No problem. You don't like it you can just not immigrate there.
Unlike hereditary monarchy, the rulers, which can be called CEO or president or whatever will always be competent selected by shareholders.
Just hire smart politician like the one governing qatar, singapore, hong kong, and dubai and we got something going.
While technically states are not "owned" by anyone, most states are run like corporation.
Imagine if a president use his power to enrich himself. We call that corruption. Imagine if some voting blocks uses their voting power to get subsidies or healthcare. We don't call that corruption. We call that serving the people's interests. It's as if the people are owners of the state and the president is agent.
Also look at most benefits for citizens in a state like US
1. If you don't work you get unemployment benefit
2. If you work you get paid more than if you do the same work in poor countries. That's because your government protect you from competition overseas. Those who works pay income taxes.
3. Ethnic groups that are not getting jobs are benefited by affirmative actions.
Yes. US government do not technically give citizenship dividend. However, those 3 things look like they're giving the same money to each citizen. It's as if the benefits are roughly equal for each citizen. When one gets more than the other, the other vote against it.
It seems that the 3 main ways US government benefit their citizens is just a complex way to give dividend to shareholders.
So why not experiment all the way. Create a mini state with owners in say Afganistan. US still handles security and of course got share of that mini state.
See how it goes.
Last edited:
