I used to be a hardcore libertarian. I think all governments are wrong. Now I greatly moderate my position. You can see what I think here, Why states, nations, provinces, cities, and villages should be run like a business? . I am now far more centrist than libertarian.
Why? At that time I thought I was just right and everyone else was wrong. I also have experiences that made me think that way. And, because like everyone else, there is some truth in my opinion.
You see, I feel respected and treated well by competing companies. If I go to Alpha Mart, for example, I buy only what I want. I pay only for what I want. If I don't, I will simply go to Betha mart, or Delta Mart, or Gamma Mart. I feel so powerful.
With government?
Meh. My governments spend so much money jailing drug users, porn producers, criminalizing this and that. Why should I pay taxes to spend on all those? Why don't my government just hunt thieves, burglars, and robbers?
Cops in my country won't do shit unless we bribe. Why should they? The voters do not care.
I sort of know why. Or at least I can make educated guess. For example, I bet prostitution is prohibited to prevent the rich from hiring girls. I bet drug are illegals so some kartel can make tons of money and because most people in democratic country don't have incentive to be rich. No body believes me.
So I complained. And one day in law of attraction forum, somebody told me. Stop looking at what's wrong. Start looking at what's right.
I look around. Well, a lot of things are right in this world. We are more capitalistic now than ever. Prosperity come to all of use. I can use cell phone. I can do biz online free from government intrution. I can hire maid and stuff.
Why? Competition.
Without competition nobody, be it governments, or the states, or shops, would do what's reasonable to please me.
If I do not have a choice to go to Bethamart, Alphamart would jack up price. In fact, in economy class, I learn that sometimes monopoly would reduce quantity of product to make more money. They sell less, however, they can sell each unit higher.
In fact, if elasticity of demand curve is low, monopoly can get rid products all the way creating artificial scarcity. I had that experience with a lawyer. Knowing I want a divorce so much he makes things so difficult so he can collect tons of money along the way. A simple task, getting a divorce, becomes difficult because I already sign an exclusivity agreement with that lawyer. That lawyer has "monopoly" of my life. Most lawyers in my country are like that.
My suffering ends when I found another lawyer that told me I've been fooled.
I was surprised. Free market fails me this time. In fact, the government that I demonized wasn't as bad as I thought. As I said, getting divorce is easy in my country.
It doesn't matter if I deal with private or public entities. If I can make them compete and shop around, I got a good deal. If I easily commit or pledge allegiance to one thing, I am fucked.
I remember a story when someone imported tools to save labour.
His competitors realize that. The competitor lobby he government so such tools were prohibited so that we can "create jobs".
That is a very unlibertarian things to do. If now some countries cannot compete with US agriculture you can only see this movie
So what happen is obvious. Some businessman lobby or bribe government so that his competitors are prohibited from using certain tools. Outside capitalism that's how people get rich, they lobby government officials.
The people? Most people are not expert in economy. They don't know. Explanation like, "This will create jobs" is reasonable enough for them.
Democracy won't fix corruption as much as democracy won't make government prohibit stuffs based on actual danger. Weed was illegal in most part of the world while cigarettes and not vaccinating child is legal. Why? Most voters are not expert biologists.
And that's why capitalistic countries like US are rich and that's why socialistic countries are poor. In socialist countries, people get rich by bribing officials to rule in their favor. So only the officials got rich.
So yea, libertarians have a good point there.
Perhaps, in western europe, where average IQ is 100, or even in Taiwan and Hong Kong with average IQ 108, democracy "may works". Not very well still. High IQ people tend to lie to each other better too. We just have different bullshit to justify "statism"
Perhaps we can educate the people. But that leads to even bigger government. Education simply becomes indoctrination. I wouldn't wait till people are smart.
We can argue argue argue, but that wouldn't solve any problem. We are arguing to people with no interest in being right.
Let's get back to the case of preventing labors from using more effective tools. Most people cannot make decisions based on that. Most of us don't own factories. How the hell we should know whether allowing time saving tools are good for economy or not? Even in western civilization there are fear of "robots" and automation. So not that my people are so stupid. We got same stupidity over there too.
So what changes?
What finally eliminate corruption?
Competition among states.
Before, I can lobby government to get your factory shut down. Then I will have no competition and make more money. In fact, in the past, a lot of business got monopoly from my government. That's how some people got really really rich.
Say you're making widget. I lobby government to shut your factory down. Now, you don't make widget. Rather than improving my factory, I will be better off bribing officials.
But then there is globalization. WTO says that all countries must let the market decide.
So even if I manage to shut down your factory, I will still have to compete with factories from China, Vietnam, Mexico, and so on.
Before, labors in US can demand government to raise minimum wage. What happens when minimum wage is raised is jobs simply move to China.
Competition among states, not so much democracy, bring libertarianism on earth.
We got to encourage even more competition. Nations already compete with one another. Why not make provinces compete with one another?
Nations compete with one another. Nations maximize certain benefits for beneficiaries, usually the citizens. Nations effectively have owners, namely their citizens.
Why not let provinces be that way too? Let provinces have owners, we can start from the original voters. Let provinces maximize revenue. Let provinces compete with other provinces.
Now. Some statists may say, why should I agree to let provinces compete with one another? I can collect bigger tax with one centralized government monopolizing everything?
Really?
No they can't. Why? Because even if provinces don't compete with one another, countries compete with one another. It is to the best interest of even statist in each countries, to encourage competition among provinces too. Otherwise they will be poorer from other countries that privatize local government.
In fact, I think this will be a great compromize that should make both statist and libertarian happy. Instead of arguing that government shouldn't do this or that, why not privatize the government itself. The statists are happy because the governments can now do many thing. The libertarians are happy because well, the government is now like private entities that are run efficiently.
I do not know what will happen in the future. I am not writing this to persuade people to privatize profit.
However, as nations compete with one another, now, companies within a country also compete with one another. Any nation that still favor one company over another unfairly through statist measures will have the whole nation made worse off. I wouldn't be surprised, if one day, provinces, cities, villages, and other local governments are also privatized.
And you know what? Now, I no longer fear the state so much. That's why I am more centrist. So what if some governments want to do this or want to do that? What's wrong with governments building roads? As long as governments and nations compete, they will do things efficiently, eventually. Voters with inefficient government will suffer themselves.
Why? At that time I thought I was just right and everyone else was wrong. I also have experiences that made me think that way. And, because like everyone else, there is some truth in my opinion.
You see, I feel respected and treated well by competing companies. If I go to Alpha Mart, for example, I buy only what I want. I pay only for what I want. If I don't, I will simply go to Betha mart, or Delta Mart, or Gamma Mart. I feel so powerful.
With government?
Meh. My governments spend so much money jailing drug users, porn producers, criminalizing this and that. Why should I pay taxes to spend on all those? Why don't my government just hunt thieves, burglars, and robbers?
Cops in my country won't do shit unless we bribe. Why should they? The voters do not care.
I sort of know why. Or at least I can make educated guess. For example, I bet prostitution is prohibited to prevent the rich from hiring girls. I bet drug are illegals so some kartel can make tons of money and because most people in democratic country don't have incentive to be rich. No body believes me.
So I complained. And one day in law of attraction forum, somebody told me. Stop looking at what's wrong. Start looking at what's right.
I look around. Well, a lot of things are right in this world. We are more capitalistic now than ever. Prosperity come to all of use. I can use cell phone. I can do biz online free from government intrution. I can hire maid and stuff.
Why? Competition.
Without competition nobody, be it governments, or the states, or shops, would do what's reasonable to please me.
If I do not have a choice to go to Bethamart, Alphamart would jack up price. In fact, in economy class, I learn that sometimes monopoly would reduce quantity of product to make more money. They sell less, however, they can sell each unit higher.
In fact, if elasticity of demand curve is low, monopoly can get rid products all the way creating artificial scarcity. I had that experience with a lawyer. Knowing I want a divorce so much he makes things so difficult so he can collect tons of money along the way. A simple task, getting a divorce, becomes difficult because I already sign an exclusivity agreement with that lawyer. That lawyer has "monopoly" of my life. Most lawyers in my country are like that.
My suffering ends when I found another lawyer that told me I've been fooled.
I was surprised. Free market fails me this time. In fact, the government that I demonized wasn't as bad as I thought. As I said, getting divorce is easy in my country.
It doesn't matter if I deal with private or public entities. If I can make them compete and shop around, I got a good deal. If I easily commit or pledge allegiance to one thing, I am fucked.
I remember a story when someone imported tools to save labour.
His competitors realize that. The competitor lobby he government so such tools were prohibited so that we can "create jobs".
That is a very unlibertarian things to do. If now some countries cannot compete with US agriculture you can only see this movie
So what happen is obvious. Some businessman lobby or bribe government so that his competitors are prohibited from using certain tools. Outside capitalism that's how people get rich, they lobby government officials.
The people? Most people are not expert in economy. They don't know. Explanation like, "This will create jobs" is reasonable enough for them.
Democracy won't fix corruption as much as democracy won't make government prohibit stuffs based on actual danger. Weed was illegal in most part of the world while cigarettes and not vaccinating child is legal. Why? Most voters are not expert biologists.
And that's why capitalistic countries like US are rich and that's why socialistic countries are poor. In socialist countries, people get rich by bribing officials to rule in their favor. So only the officials got rich.
So yea, libertarians have a good point there.
Perhaps, in western europe, where average IQ is 100, or even in Taiwan and Hong Kong with average IQ 108, democracy "may works". Not very well still. High IQ people tend to lie to each other better too. We just have different bullshit to justify "statism"
Perhaps we can educate the people. But that leads to even bigger government. Education simply becomes indoctrination. I wouldn't wait till people are smart.
We can argue argue argue, but that wouldn't solve any problem. We are arguing to people with no interest in being right.
Let's get back to the case of preventing labors from using more effective tools. Most people cannot make decisions based on that. Most of us don't own factories. How the hell we should know whether allowing time saving tools are good for economy or not? Even in western civilization there are fear of "robots" and automation. So not that my people are so stupid. We got same stupidity over there too.
So what changes?
What finally eliminate corruption?
Competition among states.
Before, I can lobby government to get your factory shut down. Then I will have no competition and make more money. In fact, in the past, a lot of business got monopoly from my government. That's how some people got really really rich.
Say you're making widget. I lobby government to shut your factory down. Now, you don't make widget. Rather than improving my factory, I will be better off bribing officials.
But then there is globalization. WTO says that all countries must let the market decide.
So even if I manage to shut down your factory, I will still have to compete with factories from China, Vietnam, Mexico, and so on.
Before, labors in US can demand government to raise minimum wage. What happens when minimum wage is raised is jobs simply move to China.
Competition among states, not so much democracy, bring libertarianism on earth.
We got to encourage even more competition. Nations already compete with one another. Why not make provinces compete with one another?
Nations compete with one another. Nations maximize certain benefits for beneficiaries, usually the citizens. Nations effectively have owners, namely their citizens.
Why not let provinces be that way too? Let provinces have owners, we can start from the original voters. Let provinces maximize revenue. Let provinces compete with other provinces.
Now. Some statists may say, why should I agree to let provinces compete with one another? I can collect bigger tax with one centralized government monopolizing everything?
Really?
No they can't. Why? Because even if provinces don't compete with one another, countries compete with one another. It is to the best interest of even statist in each countries, to encourage competition among provinces too. Otherwise they will be poorer from other countries that privatize local government.
In fact, I think this will be a great compromize that should make both statist and libertarian happy. Instead of arguing that government shouldn't do this or that, why not privatize the government itself. The statists are happy because the governments can now do many thing. The libertarians are happy because well, the government is now like private entities that are run efficiently.
I do not know what will happen in the future. I am not writing this to persuade people to privatize profit.
However, as nations compete with one another, now, companies within a country also compete with one another. Any nation that still favor one company over another unfairly through statist measures will have the whole nation made worse off. I wouldn't be surprised, if one day, provinces, cities, villages, and other local governments are also privatized.
And you know what? Now, I no longer fear the state so much. That's why I am more centrist. So what if some governments want to do this or want to do that? What's wrong with governments building roads? As long as governments and nations compete, they will do things efficiently, eventually. Voters with inefficient government will suffer themselves.
Last edited: