CDZ Why I think the state itself should be more like private companies

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by grbb, Feb 14, 2019.

?

What would be a good name for this ideology?

  1. capitalistic feudalism

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. capitalistic republic

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. joint stock republic

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. privatized competing states

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. capitalistic provinces

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. capitalism 2.0

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. extending capitalism to states

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. states with owners and shares and valuation

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. capitalistic colonialism

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. grbb
    Offline

    grbb VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    828
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +246
    Also I need a name for this new ideology.

    Some possible names are joint stock republic, joint stock feudalism, joint stock provinces, competing privatized states/provinces, capitalistic feudalism, capitalistic colonialism, capitalistic democracy, capitalism 2.0, capitalism extended, democracy with capitalistic characteristic. What?

    Basically I want to properly align people's interests to productivity. It's close to libertarian-ism though not quite.

    Corporations must be meritocratic . Nothing can be more meritocratic than organizations, with very clear measurable goal, forced to compete with one another. Any corporations that do not practice meritocracy would have been swallowed by others.

    Does corporation allow every share holders to vote? Yes
    Does corporation allow share holders to inherit shares to descendants? Yes
    Does corporation give free shares for descendants of share holders? No.
    Does corporation give free shares for babies born on specific location? No.

    To have a share in corporations you usually have to do something that are beneficial to corporations or buy from another share holders. To get a share otherwise would hit the interests of other share holders.

    I think states should be like corporations.

    So it's basically like democracy. However, citizenship is not granted based on parentage or place of birth. Citizenship is granted like shareownership.

    Investors can also get share ownership if they invest on the states. Measures are taken so this is not too abusive (gain 51% control and then enslave the whole population).

    Not libertarianism. The states can do a lot. However, competition among such states will make states to tend to be libertarian/minarchist. Tax too high and tax payers go. Make stupid laws and prohibit harmless things, and tax payers go somewhere else. So the shareholders of the state can decide whether to force every population to vaccinate their children, to tax or prohibit some drugs, etc. However, if they ban things that are actually harmless, like sex outside marriage, they don't maximize their profit.

    At least some of such states will be libertarian and libertarians can just move there. So there's something for libertarians too.

    Some states may be very unlibertarian. Some states will be white only or Muslims only or Christians only or whatever. But again, those who don't like it can move somewhere else like consumers picking different stores. In business, we call this "niche" market. Those will be rare, but an option for those who like it.

    Most states will be partway libertarians. You can watch porn but cannot crucify cats. Again, pick what you wish.

    Not Georgism. However, land tax is more easily measured than income tax. So I bet the states will be georgist or have strong incentive to be one. Malls are like those states and malls charge money based on price of your empty stores. You keep the benefit of any decoration on your stores for your self.

    In fact, I think envy voters want income taxes instead of land tax to prevent others from getting rich instead of getting revenue. It's the same reason why they want huge inheritance tax. The purpose is not really that it's the most efficient way to tax, it's just that they want to hurt others.

    Not meritocracy. That name is taken by another guy that wants to get rid inheritance. Also they want every citizen start off the same. This one actually strengthen the benefit of inheritance. The citizenship itself, like share ownership, can be inherited. People don't have more citizenship for their more numerous children for free. They have to buy or inherit those extra shares.

    It's meritocracy though. You or some sponsors (usually parents) must do something meritorious first to the state before you can get your share. So you don't get it by just being born on some right place unless the other shareholders agree.

    In fact, the biggest problem in democratic states is that the citizenship itself cannot be easily earned through merit or inherited.

    Some poor guys just breed 20 children and each of which is citizens. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11508390/Who-is-Britain...

    And those dumb people just vote for bigger and bigger welfare checks. That'll be the doom of western civilization.

    Not democracy. Well. It's sort of like democracy. In fact, if all citizens convert their citizenship to shares and limit one man one share, it'll be exactly like democracy. Nothing changes. Perhaps presidents are called CEO, and parliaments are called board of directors, and citizens become shareholders. Only the names change.

    However, this one is more flexible. The shareholders can decide, should we allow people to have more than one share? Should we grant free shares to new babies born in territories? How much would it cost? Should shares be tradeable in some markets? What's the valuation? What's the ROI?

    If citizenship or states' shares have valuation, it'll be clear how much it cost to give new babies free shares. So most likely, the shareholders will vote no.

    If shares are tradeable then states policies can be more consensual. Those who think the states sucks can short the shares and buy back latter at lower price for profit.

    Everything will be seen more clearly.

    Anarcho capitalism could be close too. Their main idea is that private entities should be like states. This idea is the total opposite. States should be like private entities. It's kind of equivalent right? However, this idea does not address problems that is not really solvable anyway. Does every single guy has to agree on every state decisions? Well, no. But every single guy can choose not to come to the state, leave the state, or sell their share. So it's more consensual.

    So what would be a good name?
     
  2. BULLDOG
    Offline

    BULLDOG Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Messages:
    56,141
    Thanks Received:
    6,459
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +37,469
    Crazy and unworkable seems to fit pretty good for a name.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. gipper
    Offline

    gipper Libertarian/Anarchist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,628
    Thanks Received:
    5,453
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +29,409
    The State should be eliminated altogether.
     
  4. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    25,918
    Thanks Received:
    3,151
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +8,239
    Wasn't it called fascism?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. gipper
    Offline

    gipper Libertarian/Anarchist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,628
    Thanks Received:
    5,453
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +29,409
    Yes. It is what we have today.
     
  6. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    31,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,804
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +8,845
    Yep. No new name is needed.
     
  7. gipper
    Offline

    gipper Libertarian/Anarchist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,628
    Thanks Received:
    5,453
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +29,409
    Yes we live under a soft Fascism, but somehow most Americans are completely unaware of this. Amazingly and even stupidly, many Americans think their central government protects them from harm.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. grbb
    Offline

    grbb VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    828
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +246
    Perhaps there is a middle way.

    Libertarians think that private sector can discriminate and public sector shouldn't.

    What about if the government, or local government itself, is privatized.

    And that's what this thread is all about.

    Should government discriminate? In general, we always discriminate. We discriminate based on grades in school, IQ, attitude, beauty. Some discrimination are "good" and some aren't.

    Why do we need visa to go to most countries? Because the country discriminate. They want to see whether you are likely to be a terrorist, or seek for jobs, or invest in biz, or be a tourists. They accept and reject you based on that.

    Under current democracy, if we allow government to discriminate, people would always discriminate against another. We will have tug of wars between discriminate him vs discriminate me.

    In fact, allow a democratic country to discriminate and the discrimination will be about race or religion. Something with little merit and often lead to ugly precedent. Look at US with it's affirmative action.

    What about if the states themselves are like corporation? Then the state that discriminate well will prosper and their share valuation go up. State that discriminate in ways that are not good will go bankrupt and get acquired by state with better discrimination.

    The military, for example, discriminate based on IQ. Why? Well, you wanna win the fucking war? Imagine if during world war 2 some military have affirmative action so "minorities" can be general too.

    Corporations also discriminate based on what's good. Otherwise they go bankcrupt by themselves.

    Should we discriminate against gays, straight, white, infidel, heretics, bla bla bla, christians, muslims, communists, liberal, atheists, or capitalists? Why not let each of those corporations/privatized state try and see whether they are profited or not. Simple right?
     
  9. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    25,918
    Thanks Received:
    3,151
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +8,239
    But we also live under soft socialism and soft libertarianism. IMO, that's the way it should be. Take the best parts and discard the rest. Don't tie yourself to a specific ideology.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. sparky
    Offline

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,355
    Thanks Received:
    1,126
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +5,232
    i couldn't have said it any better Gip

    thx

    ~S~
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page