CDZ What would hapen if a province, a small town, or a whole country is governed like corporations?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by grbb, Oct 23, 2018.

  1. grbb
    Offline

    grbb VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    588
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ratings:
    +158
    Let's start with a small town. The people in the town decides to convert their citizenship into stocks.

    Not much change.

    One man one vote becomes one man one share, one share one vote.

    The small differences are

    1. With shares, people don't just get more shares if they produce more children. This solves the main cause of poverty. Poverty happens because welfare parasites keep producing large number of cradle to grave welfare parasites. Parents that produce more than 2 children will have to buy more citizenship share to ensure that their kids have citizenship too. If they can't pay or unlikely to be able to pay after 1 children, government can require them to do some semi permanent contraception till they can.
    2. Refugees coming do not get more shares (in democracy, population have voting power. Children of refugee have the same right to vote as children of original citizens. In ancient Rome, only "founders" family can vote. Then the rest can vote. Then all Rome's colonies get Roman citizenship.).
    3. Shares can be inherited. It can be bought and sold (perhaps with some restrictions)
    4. Rich investors that want to build massive infrastructures can buy more and more shares. So, the small town or provinces can "go IPO". Even very backward and poor country can benefit from well managed investments.
    5. Some restrictions on buying and selling stocks may exist. For example, each population must have a minimum of 1 share. The state's decisions must still be approved by at least 30% of the population. Residences that do not like new rules should have ample of time to leave, and so on...
    6. We will call our leader CEO, instead of President. The function is the same. Like all CEO, the CEO of the state will worry about increasing valuation of the state and maximizing share holder value.
    7. Shares will have valuation. We will have market for citizenship/shares.
    8. Like corporations, the state will have strong incentive to produce maximum "value" at the least cost. Is this road worth building? Well, if we build this road, how many people would want to live here? How much would they be willing to pay for residency permit? All those are answerable questions.
    9. Residency permit, like shares, can also be bought and sold. If I prefer to live in normal states, I can rent my residency permit to foreigners for extra cash.

    Some possible immediate "decisions" by share holders would be

    Most governments' benefit will be replaced by standard dividend like in corporation.

    Share holders will be obsessed with return of capital (dividend + increased valuation of their share) rather than how the state is run.

    Under democracy, when your government is rich, you tend to get the benefit of your country's economic success in the form of "higher wages" in government "created jobs." That means to reap the benefit of your country's economic success you need to stay in the country.

    That means a lot of resources are spend by bickering voting blocks to get more share of the pie often at the expense of other voting blocks. Some voters want their country to move toward secularism. Another voters want their countries to be more religious. Most of the debate in democratic countries revolves around that.

    Imagine if Microsoft told the shareholders that it will create jobs for every share holder. It doesn't make sense right? It will benefit share holders that are good at programming. The opposition will then demand "affirmative action" to ensure the job goes to them. Microsoft will then have worse programmers because it has to take into account low IQ programmers that are now protected under "anti discriminatory laws".

    You got the point. All those are typical problems in democratic countries. Government benefits tend to benefit some people more than the other and the whole politic in democracy is each group of people try to get more benefit at the expense of other citizens. At the end, benefits of each citizen is roughly the same actually. They each can vote once. Most of the benefits go to lying politicians though that keep gaming the system.

    In corporations, it's simple. Every share gets the same dividend. Equal share for everyone. Okay, corporations is a bit commie in this regard. You have the same share, why should you get more or less than other share holders? If other share holders, or other people work more, then they get more, but that's usually come as salary instead of more dividend. Is it a good idea to pay workers with dividends than just salary? Well, we got stock options for that. It could be, but that's not the norm in general.

    The CEO of Microsoft concentrate on making the "pie" bigger than figuring out how to share the benefit of the pie.

    If states/provinces/countries are governed like companies, a share holder does not need to reside in the states/provinces/countries. Anyone that doesn't like the way their states are governed can simply move somewhere else. As long as the states are governed well they will still reap the benefit of those.

    Say 90% of the population is secular. Say the state decides that being even more secular will attract more secular investments, like science. That move, if done correctly, will improve the state's valuation in stock market. A religious people in that state can simply move to another place and still enjoy the benefit of increased valuation.

    The same way, if 80% of the population is religious, a secular person doesn't have to argue about how wonderful a secular state is. If the state goes toward more religious direction, it may attract investments from arab, again increasing the valuation. That secular person can move somewhere else and still receive the benefit of his well managed state.

    It's similar with stocks. You don't need to buy microsoft stocks to enjoy Bill Gates' leadership. If you own microsoft stocks, you will receive the benefit of Bill Gates' leadership in the form of higher stock price whether you use linux, max, or windows.

    Customers' interests are protected by buying others' product. The same way, a residence interests are protected by simply moving to other states. In democracy, it's difficult because most benefit of being a citizen of a rich state comes only when the person live in that state. Giving dividend instead of "creating jobs" would eliminate that issue.

    The state may have a stake at market price of land in that state.


    Well governed states are attractive to investors and people. That will increase land value.

    Infrastructure, for example, improves land price. If an infrastructure cost $4 billion and the total land price increase by $6 billion, the whole thing should be done. Usually, the state pays for the infrastructure cost and the land owners enjoy the increased land price. So a decision to spend $4 billion on infrastructure becomes complex even though the "pie" got bigger by $2 billion.

    One ways to do this is the company/state will buy an option to buy land at some locked in price. Say the price of a piece of land is $1k in 2018. The state have a right to buy that land for $1.1k for 100 years. Now the state can spend $4 billion on that infrastructure, the land price improved to $6 billion. The land owners, whose land price increase, just buy the option back from the state. $2 billion profit for the state.

    Another way would be to simply tax land the way George Hendry suggest. The state spend $4 billion for road, and expect to get extra revenue from land tax. The present value of those extra land tax is expected to be $6 billion.

    I can think of many ways. But I think this should be at least tried in the poorest region of the world with sparse population as possible.

    Cost of military will decrease

    Instead of having it's own Army, the state can just pay for protection from British, or some other powerful countries.

    The failure of republic of Minerva is that they're attacked by Tonga, a relatively weak country. If someone want to create another libertarian state, for example, just pay some power to protect the country and that problem would go away. Minerva Reefs - Wikipedia

    The british empire has a good history of protecting a group of people well. Qatar used to be a british protectorate and is now a very rich country that doesn't have to "wage war" like the rest of middle east. Hong Kong is a british colony that for years are far more prosperous than other regions in china that is "not colonized".

    Most drugs and vice will be taxed for extra revenue

    In some democratic regions like California and Colorado, this is actually done. However, in most democratic area, drugs, gambling and prostitution are illegal.

    Why?

    Simple. Babtist and Mafia combo. People that do not use drugs want it criminalized. People that do not gamble or use drugs have little incentive to get it legalized. People that use it bribe officials. That bribed officials then use religions to trick people to keep drugs a crime.

    If the state is governed like corporation, share holders have a strong incentive to legalize and tax drugs and prostitution and gambling rather than prohibiting it. It increases the states' revenue and hence valuation. It increases the shareholders' share.

    Those who disagree can simply move to other places and still receive the benefit of the share's dividend. Or they can just sell their citizenship/share and move on.

    Those who have a say in the state are those that contribute to it

    In corporations, we don't have one man one vote. We have one share one vote. The founder, the CEO, the super programmer, have bigger share than the normal workers. In democracy, every babies born and every refugees have the same number of vote irrelevant of merit.

    If countries are governed like corporations, then a person need to contribute something first, or buy shares at market price, before his vote counts.

    You do not need to fear that refugees will "change your country". Only immigrants that like your value so much they're willing to pay the market price to get in will join you.

    People Coming In Will Share Your Values

    There is no one right way to cook noodles. There is no one right operating system. I use windows and android. I don't argue day and night with Mac users.

    Those who like android can buy android phone and those who like Mac can buy Mac.

    I do not vote in ABC mart or DEF mart. If I do not like the rules in one mart, I buy stuffs from another mart. If I do not like movies in GHI cinema, I wll go to JKL cinema. I don't even care how those marts and cinemas are governed. Yet, as customers, I am de facto king.

    Customers are king under capitalism far more than people under democracy. With democracy you got to follow what the majority wants. If the states are like private corporations, you can just move the states you want.

    If there is no one right way to cook noodles, why do we insist in one right way to govern countries? Why not just move to the one we like most?

    The same with privatized countries/states/cities. Let the cities do it's best to produce environments that best attract productive individuals. Those who do not like it can just go somewhere else. In fact, if the one that go somewhere else is an ex citizen, chance is that person have a share. He could sell those share at increased price.

    We are paying those who do not like us to go and we get paid by those wanting to get in. So those who go to the state will tend to have the same values with the states.

    Libertarians will go to relatively libertarian states. The muslims go to muslim states. The democratic will go to democratic states. The commies go to commies state. And so on.

    We can prevent many mass wars or eliminate poverty in the whole world quickly.


    Many people live in extreme poverty. The main cause is mismanaged government. Perhaps, they need investors?

    Rich countries or persons can heavily invest in that state and own shares of a state. It's like a very benign colonization. Unlike Gengish Khan that mass murders cities and use forces, the arrangements can be far more consensual.

    Rich countries can invest in the private vasal state, and get voting power. When land price increased, they then sell the share to other states.

    We can see the better ideologies by comparing results

    Which ideology is the most right? Theocracy? Democracy? Capitalism? Libertarianism? Georgianism? Will legalizing drugs cause societies' collapse? Will tolerating gays make societies' collapse? Is diversity good?

    If there are many competing states, we can just see the valuation of the shares of those state. It goes up, somethings goes right. If it goes down, then something is wrong. We no longer need to consult scriptures on how to govern well. Just look at what's working.

    You know what?

    Just like noodles, what's best for a person may not be the best for another. Why not try them all and move to where you like?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
  2. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,960
    Thanks Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +1,195
    Man, thanks for taking the time to type all of that.

    Corporations are a creation of big government to share the liability of entrepreneurship among the citizens of the nation. Publicly traded corporations exist to raise capital faster than the company can earn it traditionally by getting people to gamble/invest in probable success (usually).

    You do have some analogies I agree with. Here we debate though. I'm not sure I always want cities competing with eachother. Consider cities competing to give the best deal possible to NFL billionaires to build a stadium. Eventually some idiot like St Louis comes along with too good of a deal for a business to pass up. Folks have taught me that since it wasn't the mayor's own money offered they weren't as careful. Can't say I disagree entirely.

    I'm cool with taxing reasonable drugs. Alcohol and pot are probably just part of the human condition. Not sure I want to tax crack or anything if that's what you're getting at. I'd love to legalize prostitution and tax it. No clue why small government is soo tied up in what I do with my sticks and holes.

    Again, I did not do justice to the time you took to type all that.
     
  3. grbb
    Offline

    grbb VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    588
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ratings:
    +158
    Which drugs will be illegal will be different. Drugs that's truly dangerous will remain illegal. But CEO of the states want increased valuation of the state. Why ban less dangerous drugs?

    Also that CEO, like CEO of companies would get stock options.

    No longer we count on leaders with "integrity". Integrity is fine. But quite often, corrupt politicians are the one getting elected. Who wants to govern a state when the state offer low salary and big loopholes for kickback?

    We can start like Minerva Republic.

    Minerva Republic plus Protection from China, US, or British = very successful almost libertarian country

    Once the state is successful, the ideology on that state will "spread".

    I do not need full libertarianism. Any state that's closer to Minarchy would do fine.
     
  4. bear513
    Online

    bear513 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    44,525
    Thanks Received:
    5,780
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +29,406
    What happens if we run a country like a country?

    We get the useless IRS, DMV, post office ...redunt state agency's and lazy no good for public workers milking a pay check .
     
  5. grbb
    Offline

    grbb VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    588
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ratings:
    +158
    Actually, there should be a parody of this thread. What about if we run a company like a country.

    Imagine if all consumers, and employee, and share holders of Microsoft stage a revolution declaring that the company is now a democracy.

    One man, one vote, irrelevant of actual amount of original share ownership.

    Also CEO is paid with low salary with huge loophole for kickbacks.

    Also, some "libertarian" share holders blindly say that Microsoft is open to all. Open border. Anyone that buy microsoft product is a share holder. One man one vote. Irrelevant of contribution.

    Then Microsoft will soon be owned by 8 billions share holders each with 1 share because democracy.

    Imagine if conservative says money without work is evil. So no more dividend. Microsoft, however, will create jobs for share holders. Of course, programmers, indians, whites, chinese are more likely to get a job in microsoft. That policy will disproportionately benefit certain race. What would the black do? Demand affirmative action.

    And then we will have all the problems we have in countries. Welfare. Corporate welfare. Corruption. Bla bla bla bla....

    The problem with most part of history, is that while we agree stealing is wrong, we do not think that looting and plundering is wrong. It's just normal for a strong country to rob the others.

    Now, things are improving. Stealing is wrong. Plundering is wrong. But voting to plunder one citizen for another is not.

    I would say, we should recognize that democracy is at best a compromise. Let's make a better system and a better country, governed meritocratically from the start.

    It will be very consensual. In fact it's almost as consensual as anarcho capitalistic ideal. In anarcho capitalistic ideal, every single person in that country has to agree. Well. We can achieve that. Buy an empty land. Anyone entering that land is consenting. If they don't like minarchism why move to that land?

    What about if the land is already occupied by some people? Normally white people would mass murder the indigenous population.

    C'mon. Instead of that, give the indeginous population a good deal. They can have a share in the country. That indigenous population can include really fucked up region like Syria. Not that things are "fully consensual" there. We give them a better deal.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Dale Smith
    Offline

    Dale Smith Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    19,230
    Thanks Received:
    5,460
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Ratings:
    +25,936
    All states, all counties, all cities and 99 percent of all towns, townships and burgs ate "incorporated". They are all subsidiaries of USA.INC that has been taken into receivership at least four times. Why does it matter? Do you really want to know? I get tired of repeating myself and casting pearls before swine.....but allow me to "hip" you to this one fact. It's about jurisdiction, cohesion contracts and legalese.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. grbb
    Offline

    grbb VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    588
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ratings:
    +158
    No they're not. It's close enough but not. Is this a joke?

    Say a city is build well. The citizen of that city build better roads, reduce corruption, and so on. Citizens from another city can simply "move there" and enjoy all those better roads and so on.

    Also, under democracy, every baby born is fully citizen that can vote for more welfare.

    Even states cannot legalize drugs and prostitution easily because it's up to the federal government.

    You see the small differences?

    Democratic states is like corporations if everyone have exactly the same number of children and no body immigrate or emigrate. The fact is, poor people can breed like rabbit and have more citizenship for his bloodlines. Also, immigration and emigration is a corner stone of this idea. Move to where you like best.
     
  8. Dale Smith
    Offline

    Dale Smith Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    19,230
    Thanks Received:
    5,460
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Ratings:
    +25,936
    I am dead on correct.
     
  9. xyz
    Offline

    xyz Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2016
    Messages:
    4,380
    Thanks Received:
    453
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Ratings:
    +2,222
    I think this is probably a case of fantasy gone too far, sort of like communism (although obviously capitalistic).

    If you can sell those stocks, then it would cause some problems, but considering this is supposed to be just a small town I don't see why military would even have anything to do with this.

    But basically I think this could be a success or failure depending on what local resources they have or don't have.

    And it would be highly likely that some people would try to buy more stocks, eventually leading to some kind of more or less feudal state, maybe kind of like the local barons that run certain areas of rural China (and are members of the Communist Party and very capitalist). Kind of like the Mafia and state into one. This would be a possible danger in the longer term.
     
  10. grbb
    Offline

    grbb VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    588
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ratings:
    +158
    Actually, feudalism, Hong Kong, colonialism, minerva, communism, and so many things in history is part of my inspiration.

    YES. Many of those end in absurd failure. The risk is there. Which is why I suggest we did this small first and in some poor regions that's sparsely populated first.

    Free state of Congo is one of the shit that happens when "for profit" organization rules a state.

    However, even those that fails tend to have "something right" in it. Otherwise it wouldn't get big.

    Western civilization is simply far more advanced than, say, the African.... Some of their colonization is so cruel. Some are actually good. We want to promote the good one. And it doesn't have to be western civilization. Any advance and rich states can help create protectorates and help many people, with their consent to do well.

    Some, like Hong Kong, and Singapore, is actually "good" from many points of view. It's good for British. It's good for Hong Kong people. For 50 years or so, Hong Kong is far more prosperous than the rest of China.

    Even colonialism can be benign if done fairly. It can quickly lift poor countries out of poverty and fix many issues. Hong Kong and Singapore is one such things.

    I am not talking about colonialism where, at gun point, more advance civilization mass murder the people and rules with iron fist. I am talking about a more benign approach.

    You see how people in middle east are busy killing each other? Some powerful country should come to them and say, you messed up. Why don't you lend me 5% of your region, let me govern that 5%, and see how "real governing" is done.

    I bet, average syiah in Iraq is better of being ruled by the British than by their Sunni counterpart. And I bet 5% of them would agree. Those who agree can move to that British protectorate, the rest can continue their old way should they wish.

    From anarcho capitalism points of view, this is very consensual. Those who do not like can leave and those who want can get in. Perhaps there are some properties issues like land, but that's just something money can solve.

    Not like ISIS bother asking for consent. So any process that's more consensual than never ending war between sunni and syiah should be fine.

    However, democracy also have it's limitation. We can never go higher than the intellect of the people. We have better and better start ups where the best and brightest minds create better and better businesses.

    Yet those best and brightest minds that produce microsoft, google, and apple cannot produce better countries.

    Again, we should let the best and brightest to create "start up countries". Here is a small poor region. Within reasonable limits (no torture, no laws are made that are unclear or become officials too fast), we let them govern. See if they can make better ones.

    Those who don't like the way they govern can just go somewhere else.

    Basically, we open "government" industry to business and competition. Also we come up with some ways to prevent the usual war and bickering that happens when kings have absolute power.

    I do not think british empire would protect a king/CEO that's too evil anyway.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018

Share This Page