CDZ If you can design your own state, how would it be?

[grbb]

This is how I would do it. I'll do it for profit.

Joint Stock Republic/Competing Privatized States

I want my states to be run like private corporation. So I want competing "privatized" states. It seek profit but must compete with other states.

I would judge my states based on what the other states do. For example, I wouldn't call it wrong for the state to ask for 10% income taxes if the states' competitors are charging 40% income tax.

I wouldn't call my states wrong for criminalizing some drugs if the other states criminalize even more drugs.

I want the states to be better than other states, but I don't expect a perfect libertarian state.

Just like shops, a good shop sell slightly better stuffs at slightly cheaper price. And that's it. Imagine if I demand a good shop to sell super stuffs for free. Wouldn't work.

The same way I do not insist on a libertarian state. I expect my state to be slightly more libertarian with slightly lower tax.

If my state can do that, then that's it. The extra money can go as profit to shareholders.

However, I would suggest land tax instead of income tax. Hei, it's up to share holders. Those who don't like it can get out.

It can be like democracy. However, people don't get shares simply by breeding. That's the main difference between my state and democracy.

Also you don't always have to go along with majority voice. Say 51% of shareholders want to criminalize drugs and you think that's a stupid idea, you just sell your share, and buy back when the price is low. You can buy, sell, long, and short the shares.

If it turns out that criminalizing drugs is a good idea and raise up the share price, I may agree. I don't think so. But I may agree. After all, this is for profit. Drug dealers need to agree to pay huge tax to counter that effect. I would suggest taxing instead of completely legalizing.

If the states want to be a democracy, then the shareholders can decide that each population can have only 1 share or a maximum of 2 shares. However, it's up to shareholders. Shareholders that want quick free infrastructure can just issue shares for investors, for example.

Shares can pay dividend. That dividend shall replace all social programs. If shareholders want more dividend, the way to do it is not to become poor or breed more kids. The way to do it is to vote for better president/CEO.

If some shareholders believe that the states need more population, they can give discount for sons/daughters of share holders to own part of the states too. States need more than just money. States also need population to defend against attack. Switzerland will not be rich if they don't have population.

I would set the state as a corporation owned by stockholders and investors.

Anyone wanting citizenship must buy or contribute.

I would hire mercenaries or be vasal for some powerful countries. Mercenaries can also be share holders. In fact, some of the pay will be shares. Shares can be inherited to children.


After that, I would let the stockholders decide. If they want to tax land, or income or whatever. As long as it's not excessive and not abrupt. So people that don't like it can escape peacefully.

That's all.

The states are like Disney land. It can be anything. They can put mickey mouse. They can put Japanese porn star as maskot. They can be theocracy. They can be secular. It can be libertarian minarchist (vanilla states). It's up to the state.

The states are like private companies. We don't tell burger king and mcdonald what burgers they can cook. They choose whatever they want. They choose whatever name they want for those burgers.

I want states to be more like those private companies. Each state try different things. Then we just keep score which one is run better. How do we keep scores which states are run better? The same way we keep scores which companies are run better. We mostly let the market decide.

States that can make taxpayers, investors, and soldiers happy, at minimum cost will have the shares go up. We need a mechanism so my state do not plunder or be plundered by other states. I think our political system nowadays already support that. That is all we need actually. Each state not plundering each other and I am sure each state will do what works on creating wealth.

Those who don't like it don't have to come. However, the states should be small enough that people that don't like it can just leave to another.

The ultimate source of power is in the market. Think about it. It already is right. Most states right now are mere players in global economy. The market already rules the globe.

Nation states already compete with one another. Now, I want provinces, sub states, small areas, to compete too. So anyone that do not like to live in one area can simply move 20km away and end up living in a better state.

Now that's general.

Of course, being a libertarian, I want a libertarian state. However, the states do not need to be all libertarian. I would think it's a good idea to have niche markets on those states. So if those muslims want to set up a state in Africa and they want to put sharia, I won't oppose it. My libertarian state may work next to it. We may even pay those muslims for protection, though I prefer protection from China or British.

Those who want sharia can go to the muslim states and those who want secularism can go got my libertarian states. In fact, we may own shares for both states. However, the population are effectively customers. So I would listen to what the majority of customers want and the state will move toward that direction.

So it's like democracy with natural segregation. Instead of secular people living unhappily in religious state or religious people living unhappily in secular states, let each go to where they like.

I don't go to Burger King demanding Big Mac. So don't go to a religious country demanding secularism or go to a libertarian country wanting to implement sharia. Let each state "produces" freedom they want and anyone willing to pay tax can get in.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Ah, feudalism.

 

[Preacher]

White's only. No Jews etc. Ideology would be Racial Socialism,Creativity the official religion but as long as your religion doesn't harm the state then you are free to worship as you want. I personally prefer a benevolent dictator but can be convinced to use something different possibly. I think we would have each town/city elect/choose elders who would then report to elders that would represent areas within each state who report to elders who represent the state on and on. Not completely figured out but absolutely a 1 party state. Democracy,Communism etc all banned completely.

 

[grbb]

I find Odium idea offensive. But guess what? I like to see a world, where that thing can be tried.

Go ahead. White only province, muslim only province. All we need is some referee to keep things fair. That could be a strong but thin central government.

It can be something as loose as anarcho capitalism among states. The latter is how our world is governed now. We don't have world government. Yet states do not wage war with one another.

Then, let the states compete like corporations.

I prefer libertarian states. I do not think it's tough to make a state or province with far less expenditure and tax with far higher security and freedom.

No war on drugs. Tax drugs instead. Save money. Sterilized, temporarily, those who breed without being able to afford child tax. No cradle to grave welfare parasites. The child can inherit the citizenshare. So nobody starve either.

We need arrangements so that those who are governed well get automatically or semi automatically rewarded. Just like corporations.

I also want to start the state peacefully. Rather than with gun, I would come to local inhabitants and say, let my corporation invest, in exchange of shares. It'll be win win. We'll still have guns for self defense, so republic of minerva doesn't happen.

 

[Picaro]

Henry George goes to great lengths, and F.A. Hayek as well, pointing out that without a moral and principled society, it doesn't matter what type of govt one puts in place, it will fail every time. First you need a strong moral culture. Everything else falls into place after that. American govt is corrupt because most of its people are, not because of all the silly lying that corrupt pols and officials are all from another planet or something; they're all homegrown right here, and the public elects them.

 

[Picaro]

I find Odium idea offensive. But guess what? I like to see a world, where that thing can be tried.

Go ahead. White only province, muslim only province. All we need is some referee to keep things fair. That could be a strong but thin central government.

It can be something as loose as anarcho capitalism among states. The latter is how our world is governed now. We don't have world government. Yet states do not wage war with one another.

Then, let the states compete like corporations.

I prefer libertarian states. I do not think it's tough to make a state or province with far less expenditure and tax with far higher security and freedom.

No war on drugs. Tax drugs instead. Save money. Sterilized, temporarily, those who breed without being able to afford child tax. No cradle to grave welfare parasites. The child can inherit the citizenshare. So nobody starve either.

We need arrangements so that those who are governed well get automatically or semi automatically rewarded. Just like corporations.

I also want to start the state peacefully. Rather than with gun, I would come to local inhabitants and say, let my corporation invest, in exchange of shares. It'll be win win. We'll still have guns for self defense, so republic of minerva doesn't happen.

This is just Soylent Green masquerading as hippie fantasies.

 

[Picaro]

White's only. No Jews etc. Ideology would be Racial Socialism,Creativity the official religion but as long as your religion doesn't harm the state then you are free to worship as you want. I personally prefer a benevolent dictator but can be convinced to use something different possibly. I think we would have each town/city elect/choose elders who would then report to elders that would represent areas within each state who report to elders who represent the state on and on. Not completely figured out but absolutely a 1 party state. Democracy,Communism etc all banned completely.

I don't want to live in an America without Buddy Hackett.

 

[sartre play]

Designing a state would be above my pay grade, But mine would not look like Alabama or California.

 

[grbb]

Henry George goes to great lengths, and F.A. Hayek as well, pointing out that without a moral and principled society, it doesn't matter what type of govt one puts in place, it will fail every time. First you need a strong moral culture. Everything else falls into place after that. American govt is corrupt because most of its people are, not because of all the silly lying that corrupt pols and officials are all from another planet or something; they're all homegrown right here, and the public elects them.

Moral and principles are good at all. But as, Adam Smith points out, it's not compassion (or moral) that makes the cake baker bakes their cake. It's their self interests.

We need a way to properly aligned people's self interests to productivity. Capitalism is a way to do so.

But how do we align voters' interests to productivity?

Most voters do not care about productivity as a whole. Many voters want to prohibit safe drugs even though it cost a lot. Many voters want bigger welfare that encourage poverty. Many voters simply don't want you to get rich. I bet income tax is there not to help governments make money but to make it difficult for people to get rich.

So how do properly align voters' interests to "productivity"?

By extending principles of capitalism to states. Make states like corporations. The only way the states can increase it's valuation is if produces something that others' want. It can be more freedom, more porn, less porn, more jobs, less jobs. Whatever. What people want differs so different states should be different.

I am a libertarian. I want to live in a libertarian state. I am willing to pay to live in a libertarian state. For a state to get money from people like me, the state need to provide environment that I like. That means producing "value".

I do not have to hate or argue with people that prefer syariah or communism or puritans or whatever. They too can go where they like. If they do not like their children hang around with prostitutes, they can go to states where prostitution is illegal.

No need to argue. Just move with your feet and wallet, the way capitalism works.