How do things improved in private sector?
Look at Uber. Someone starts with an idea. Why not make finding cab easier? Why not allow anyone to be taxi driver.
Simple idea.
Then they do some coding and create uber.
If his idea is bad, then it wouldn't sell.
If his idea is good, he's a billionaire. Well, it's not really that simple. However, most of the time, that's how private sectors work.
The same goes with all unicorn. Starbucks, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple. They all start with an idea. They try it. And they can try those ideas without the whole world having to agree. As long as some investors agree, some programmers agree, and latter some customers agree, that's it. Do it.
Imagine if you want to create something like Apple and you need to wait till 50% of the people in your country to agree that it's a good idea. It wouldn't work. All we need is a system where Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) can run his idea even if no one else agree, make sure that Steve doesn't rob or defraud others, and tada, we got stuff going.
If it works, Steve will be rich. If it doesn't, Steve will be the one taking the brunt.
Just like we have start up in business, we should have start up in politic.
Democracy, monarchy, libertarian-ism, georgism, legalization of drugs, discrimination based on religions/race/IQ/capability/beauty. All those are idea that may be good, may be bad. More importantly, those things are ideas that may be good for some while bad for another.
Do you want porn to be illegal? Well, for some people it's a good idea. They want to live in a region free from porn. For another it's a bad idea. What about gambling, drugs, religions, and prostitution? Some people like to live in area where it's illegal. Some people like to live in area where it's legal.
It's like Pizza vs Burger. Some like burgers, some like pizza. We don't argue pizza is good and burger is bad. You like pizza you go to Pizza Hut. You like burger, you go to Burger King.
We should let people try.
The problem is, how do we keep score?
In uber and many other start ups, it's easy. How do I say it? The market, with little or no intervention of government sort of take care of it.
If Uber ideas are good, then investors, customers, and drivers may agree. Then they will try, usually small first. Once it works then it grows big.
Everyone is profited when the idea is good.
Most of the time governments do very little and only when things go really wrong. Apple cannot defraud customers. Apple cannot send thugs to microsoft demanding money. That sort of thing. Basically non aggression principle. However, Apple can do a lot. Apple can decide what products to produce.
Apple can decide the price. If I do not like Apple product (and I don't), I do not vote and say that's bad, it should be illegal. I should just buy android and microsoft. However, I respect Apple fan boys even though I disagree with them. They don't hurt my interests in anyway.
Can we do the same with governments?
Well, under current democracy, it's a bit tricky.
For example, imagine if a state in united states vote for communism, north korean style. Say the state or city went bankrupt. Then what happens? The population in the city will just go to another city.
Actually, similar things are happening. Many muslim countries end up becoming war zones. Why? They're not secular. Then what?
The muslims just move to europe. What happen when they move to europe? Do they say, wow, I should promote secularism back home? Some do. I befriend many "moderate muslims".
However, many muslims promote the exact same thing that turn their countries into war-zone. Yes, not all muslims are terrorists. However, there are reasons why terrorists tend to be muslims. There are many things that muslims do that make terrorists are likely. Muslims for example, like most non european people, have lower respect to freedom of speech.
Or imagine liberal compassionate voters in a state. The liberal compassionate voters give more welfare to ensure no child is left behind. What happens is some feckless father produces 20 children and all are paid with tax payers' money through welfare. All those children are likely to be similar to their dad. So we have hordes of welfare parasites poping babies like machine guns. Every single one can vote for even bigger welfare.
Not all liberals produce 20 children and can't afford it. We can call those who do "liberal extremist". I bet someone with 20 children and can't afford it will be very liberal no matter what. However, while most liberals are not like that, they vote for things that make some people have 20 children while poor. Most liberals vote for welfare, for example.
Just like I bet any religious leaders that make money in politic will hate secularism so much and we can call them "extremists".
But yea, that's how religions work. Some religious leaders with strong incentive against secularism and strong incentive to favor corrupt leaders (that can give money to those religious leaders) can somehow convince voters that their agenda is a great idea.
The state collapse and where does the population go? They just go to another state voting for bigger and bigger welfare and higher tax again.
Notice, neither the muslims nor the liberals are "evil" in a sense. Neither of them I think deliberately vote for strategies that make their states fail. What's more likely is they're ignorant. Many muslims vote based on faith and liberals vote based on compassion. If they vote wrong, someone else, namely tax payers and other citizens, pay for it. So it's natural they would be ignorant.
Many muslims vote based on faith. Some religious leaders say this fatwa. So they enforce it. Another religious leaders say another fatwa. They try to enforce it again. When the fatwa clash they fight. But they don't think that far.
The liberals just can't let a kid starve. However, if every kids are fed, many poor people will just breed. Women will prefer the poor more because tax payers pay for the kid anyway. The liberals simply do not see that link. They think women pick based on love or whatever and any other deviation is oppression or what.
Everyone would when they make decisions collectively. They ignore obvious links.
So why don't we go back to private sectors and see how do they do it.
Say I created uber. Say my idea isn't good. Say the program is buggy and customers are angry I get low rating. What can I do? I can be a google shareholder and vote? If my company fail, can I easily vote or control another company and make it fail too?
No. To the opposite. If my company is successful, I am rich, I can buy failing companies at cheaper price, and turn it around. If my company fails, then all I can do is sell it to smarter people.
Companies, unlike states, have "owners". Those owners will have direct and clear benefits if the companies are run effectively and efficiently. They lost when the company is miss managed. The share holders in those companies have unified incentives. All are profited if and only if the company go well.
The shares can be traded and have valuation.
If companies have owners, why states don't? States should have owners too. In democratic countries, we can say that the people own it. Just make it explicit. Convert citizenship into tradeable corporate share.
Now, govern well, then a state will prosper. Govern badly, and the state will be poor. Richer state can help poorer state by buying shares from poorer states and govern well.
If the state is governed well, surely plenty of people will want to live in that state. It's up to the state how to tax them. Tax too high, people would leave. Tax too low and they're not making too much profit.
I am sure there are many many many ways to increase tax revenue and still make a state attractive for people to come in. In fact, tax revenue can increase by lowering tax rate. Just like shops can often make profit by undercutting price of competing shops, states too can "race to the bottom" in taxing.
It also gives a clear answer on what's good and bad. Good for who? Well, good for whoever wants to come to the state. If you don't like it, just don't go to the state. In fact, if the state is small enough, it's easy to just leave the state and go a "normal" state.
Is land tax more efficient than income tax? Why not let some cities try. Is prohibiting weed good? What about discriminating based on muslims/christians/liberals/conservatives/blacks/whites/gender/iq?
Why not let some cities try?
Libertarians insist that private parties can do anything as long as it's NAP. However, the state almost can't do anything under libertarianism. What about if the state themselves are like private parties? What about if states have owners, have shares with valuations that can be traded and inherited, and seek profit and valuation? Then both libertarians and statists would be happy right?
Government just ensure those cities do not attack one another, do not defraud population, and give reasonable time for those too adversely affected by the cities policy to move the hell out.
The best system will proliferate. I bet one of them is libertarianism. However, I may be wrong. Let them try and let's move to those we like. If I like something enough, I am willing to pay to live there. Let all governments compete to make better places that attract people.
Look at Uber. Someone starts with an idea. Why not make finding cab easier? Why not allow anyone to be taxi driver.
Simple idea.
Then they do some coding and create uber.
If his idea is bad, then it wouldn't sell.
If his idea is good, he's a billionaire. Well, it's not really that simple. However, most of the time, that's how private sectors work.
The same goes with all unicorn. Starbucks, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple. They all start with an idea. They try it. And they can try those ideas without the whole world having to agree. As long as some investors agree, some programmers agree, and latter some customers agree, that's it. Do it.
Imagine if you want to create something like Apple and you need to wait till 50% of the people in your country to agree that it's a good idea. It wouldn't work. All we need is a system where Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) can run his idea even if no one else agree, make sure that Steve doesn't rob or defraud others, and tada, we got stuff going.
If it works, Steve will be rich. If it doesn't, Steve will be the one taking the brunt.
Just like we have start up in business, we should have start up in politic.
Democracy, monarchy, libertarian-ism, georgism, legalization of drugs, discrimination based on religions/race/IQ/capability/beauty. All those are idea that may be good, may be bad. More importantly, those things are ideas that may be good for some while bad for another.
Do you want porn to be illegal? Well, for some people it's a good idea. They want to live in a region free from porn. For another it's a bad idea. What about gambling, drugs, religions, and prostitution? Some people like to live in area where it's illegal. Some people like to live in area where it's legal.
It's like Pizza vs Burger. Some like burgers, some like pizza. We don't argue pizza is good and burger is bad. You like pizza you go to Pizza Hut. You like burger, you go to Burger King.
We should let people try.
The problem is, how do we keep score?
In uber and many other start ups, it's easy. How do I say it? The market, with little or no intervention of government sort of take care of it.
If Uber ideas are good, then investors, customers, and drivers may agree. Then they will try, usually small first. Once it works then it grows big.
Everyone is profited when the idea is good.
Most of the time governments do very little and only when things go really wrong. Apple cannot defraud customers. Apple cannot send thugs to microsoft demanding money. That sort of thing. Basically non aggression principle. However, Apple can do a lot. Apple can decide what products to produce.
Apple can decide the price. If I do not like Apple product (and I don't), I do not vote and say that's bad, it should be illegal. I should just buy android and microsoft. However, I respect Apple fan boys even though I disagree with them. They don't hurt my interests in anyway.
Can we do the same with governments?
Well, under current democracy, it's a bit tricky.
For example, imagine if a state in united states vote for communism, north korean style. Say the state or city went bankrupt. Then what happens? The population in the city will just go to another city.
Actually, similar things are happening. Many muslim countries end up becoming war zones. Why? They're not secular. Then what?
The muslims just move to europe. What happen when they move to europe? Do they say, wow, I should promote secularism back home? Some do. I befriend many "moderate muslims".
However, many muslims promote the exact same thing that turn their countries into war-zone. Yes, not all muslims are terrorists. However, there are reasons why terrorists tend to be muslims. There are many things that muslims do that make terrorists are likely. Muslims for example, like most non european people, have lower respect to freedom of speech.
Or imagine liberal compassionate voters in a state. The liberal compassionate voters give more welfare to ensure no child is left behind. What happens is some feckless father produces 20 children and all are paid with tax payers' money through welfare. All those children are likely to be similar to their dad. So we have hordes of welfare parasites poping babies like machine guns. Every single one can vote for even bigger welfare.
Not all liberals produce 20 children and can't afford it. We can call those who do "liberal extremist". I bet someone with 20 children and can't afford it will be very liberal no matter what. However, while most liberals are not like that, they vote for things that make some people have 20 children while poor. Most liberals vote for welfare, for example.
Just like I bet any religious leaders that make money in politic will hate secularism so much and we can call them "extremists".
But yea, that's how religions work. Some religious leaders with strong incentive against secularism and strong incentive to favor corrupt leaders (that can give money to those religious leaders) can somehow convince voters that their agenda is a great idea.
The state collapse and where does the population go? They just go to another state voting for bigger and bigger welfare and higher tax again.
Notice, neither the muslims nor the liberals are "evil" in a sense. Neither of them I think deliberately vote for strategies that make their states fail. What's more likely is they're ignorant. Many muslims vote based on faith and liberals vote based on compassion. If they vote wrong, someone else, namely tax payers and other citizens, pay for it. So it's natural they would be ignorant.
Many muslims vote based on faith. Some religious leaders say this fatwa. So they enforce it. Another religious leaders say another fatwa. They try to enforce it again. When the fatwa clash they fight. But they don't think that far.
The liberals just can't let a kid starve. However, if every kids are fed, many poor people will just breed. Women will prefer the poor more because tax payers pay for the kid anyway. The liberals simply do not see that link. They think women pick based on love or whatever and any other deviation is oppression or what.
Everyone would when they make decisions collectively. They ignore obvious links.
So why don't we go back to private sectors and see how do they do it.
Say I created uber. Say my idea isn't good. Say the program is buggy and customers are angry I get low rating. What can I do? I can be a google shareholder and vote? If my company fail, can I easily vote or control another company and make it fail too?
No. To the opposite. If my company is successful, I am rich, I can buy failing companies at cheaper price, and turn it around. If my company fails, then all I can do is sell it to smarter people.
Companies, unlike states, have "owners". Those owners will have direct and clear benefits if the companies are run effectively and efficiently. They lost when the company is miss managed. The share holders in those companies have unified incentives. All are profited if and only if the company go well.
The shares can be traded and have valuation.
If companies have owners, why states don't? States should have owners too. In democratic countries, we can say that the people own it. Just make it explicit. Convert citizenship into tradeable corporate share.
Now, govern well, then a state will prosper. Govern badly, and the state will be poor. Richer state can help poorer state by buying shares from poorer states and govern well.
If the state is governed well, surely plenty of people will want to live in that state. It's up to the state how to tax them. Tax too high, people would leave. Tax too low and they're not making too much profit.
I am sure there are many many many ways to increase tax revenue and still make a state attractive for people to come in. In fact, tax revenue can increase by lowering tax rate. Just like shops can often make profit by undercutting price of competing shops, states too can "race to the bottom" in taxing.
It also gives a clear answer on what's good and bad. Good for who? Well, good for whoever wants to come to the state. If you don't like it, just don't go to the state. In fact, if the state is small enough, it's easy to just leave the state and go a "normal" state.
Is land tax more efficient than income tax? Why not let some cities try. Is prohibiting weed good? What about discriminating based on muslims/christians/liberals/conservatives/blacks/whites/gender/iq?
Why not let some cities try?
Libertarians insist that private parties can do anything as long as it's NAP. However, the state almost can't do anything under libertarianism. What about if the state themselves are like private parties? What about if states have owners, have shares with valuations that can be traded and inherited, and seek profit and valuation? Then both libertarians and statists would be happy right?
Government just ensure those cities do not attack one another, do not defraud population, and give reasonable time for those too adversely affected by the cities policy to move the hell out.
The best system will proliferate. I bet one of them is libertarianism. However, I may be wrong. Let them try and let's move to those we like. If I like something enough, I am willing to pay to live there. Let all governments compete to make better places that attract people.
