- All people.
- Men
- Women
- Men & Women
- Men, Women, and Children
- Land owners
- Mixed. Land owners and population
- Stockholders (so the new country is like a stock, and stockholders decide everything
- Forget voting. Let a dictator/CEO run the job and pay him based on indicators like GDP
Say we want a normal country that just want to make the population prosper.
I found something wrong no matter what we choose. For example, I read about VOC and free congo. Letting stockholders vote can have adverse effect on the population. In free congo, the population get their hand chopped off. In VOC, many javanese die due to "tanam paksa". One solution to this problem is "democracy". Let the people vote.
But that leads to another problem.
Look at this NU, Muhammadiyah criticize Meiliana blasphemy verdict
NU and Muhammadiyah criticize Meiliana verdic. Those are muslims organization. What really happens?
Meiliana complains the mosques are too loud. His complaints causes riots. Some muslims destroy and burn buddhist temples. Those who burn buddhist temples got 3 months in jail and Meiliana, got 1.8 months in jail due to her complain.
So to be a bit balanced to the muslims, I point out that even muslim organizations criticizes the penalty. However, that's how the law nowadays are.
The legal framework is a bit tricky. Blasphemy laws is "delik aduan" or re portable offense. Someone have to complain first before it becomes a crime. The Buddhist are coward or peaceful depending on how you see it. They do not complain that their temples are burned. The muslims are far more "hawkish". Cowardice is not their issue as can be seen by suicide bombings.
Muslims like to announce daily prayer with loud speakers. Obviously non muslims do not like that. It lower land value near the area.
Say the people can vote.
Say you build a province or a new country. Say you govern well. What will happen is that many muslims or communists will come to your newly found country. If people can vote, they will simply vote for their "ways of doing things". As we can all see, almost no democratic muslim countries are rich. Many are failing or failed state.
This is a big issue in Indonesia. The chinese are minority but understand money better. Sometimes, a businessman would buy a large plot of land and the land is more prosperous. The land price went up. However, the "adzan" voice keeps price low.
Should we allow "adzan"?
It depends on who votes. If votes are based on land ownership, the Chinese will have their way. After all, their land value will go up or down based on the law of the land. Normal population can just go somewhere else if they do not like it.
If population can vote, any prosperous nation/provinces will simply be flooded with immigrants from poor countries. Those immigrants then vote for socialism/syariah/communism or any system that erode factors that cause the province to prosper in the first place.
Nation states have a way to handle this. They simply reject immigrants. However, that causes economic inefficiency. In US, for example, many of the population still wash their own houses even though they can just hire cheap mexican for that. Allowing immigrants to come without becoming citizen solve this.
However, this doesn't work for provinces or states within a country. Free movement of population means a person can move from a state they don't like to a state they do like. Say, California is capitalistic and Ohio is communist. Obviously California will be richer, and that would attract people from Ohio to California. Once in California, the new population that is also citizen, will simply vote for communism and redistribution of wealth. Knowing that, California will have little incentives to govern well.
How do we properly align everyone's interests more "harmoniously". I want a system where if voters choose wisely, they and mainly they are the one that's prosperous and not voters in other states that do not choose wisely.
Last edited:
