CDZ Why competition among states are very important for prosperity?

[grbb]

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.

 

[task0778]

We already have competition between states, do we not? They offer greater tax incentives and inducements to get big biz like Amazon to build in their state, no? So what good is privatization going to do? Are you going to take away the vote for state and local officials? It sounds like you want to move to an autocratic form of gov't, or an oligarchy. Or do you mean to outsource certain gov't functions such as education or healthcare?

 

[grbb]

Actually you are correct. States are already like business.


And that is why US is prosperous. I think every large country should at least try to be federal like US.


It can still be improved though. There are issues that mere federalization do not solve that privatization of states can solve.


1. Welfare parasites breeding.


In privatized states, shares are inherited. If someone breed 20 children, his children will have to share his one share. In most western countries, some feckless father can produce 20 children 40 children by 20 mothers: the feckless father who insists 'God says go forth and multiply' each of which have some share on the country.


Democracy have a solution to address this. As usual the solution is far from optimum.


Life is tough for welfare parasites. Think about it. If life is easy, they would breed more. So the conservative try to make life tough for the poor. The liberal give money for the poor and the conservative make life miserable while jailing tons of people. It's like a tug of war.


We hold this truth with plenty of evidence that the majority of people with lower than 85 IQ aren't gonna be useful for any job. In fact, the military, that wants as many cannon fodders as possible, do not hire anyone lower than 83 IQ. Is it truly illegal for the US army to hire someone with IQ less than 83?


The chinese have saying. Good irons are not made into nails. Good people are not made into soldiers. If even the military don't want to hire those lower than 83 IQ, you think anyone in private sector would?


The best thing anyone that cannot get a job do is to stop breeding. Seriously. Either start a business like me or stop breeding.


Take a look at income tax and welfare combo. Bob is poor. If Bob work hard, he gets taxed. If Bob breed, he get tax money. So Bob breed instead of working hard.


The truth is, the georgian actually have a good point. If you wanna redistribute wealth, just give cash like shareholders getting dividend. In fact, they advocate citizenship dividend. However, under current democracy, where every child is a citizen, irrelevant of merit or payment from dad, it can't work. If you give more shares and dividend to the poor they breed, and breed, and breed, and breed, and your country will be filled with poor people that do nothing but breed and get welfare check.


As someone that were once poor but now quite successful, I know that cash would have helped me a lot. I would have had more capital to start my internet business and got rich faster. I did finally make it. All governments' help to help the poor actually prevent poor people from getting rich.


So in democracy you have this tug of war. Some wants bigger redistribution of wealth and another make sure that live is still shitty for the unproductive even though the redistribution of wealth is already big.


In privatization of states, we can at least see how much it costs to give free citizenship to each welfare parasite child. We would see that it's cheaper to just pay them to stop breeding. Or we can give welfare in exchange of temporary sterilization. The sterilization can be reversed once the poor guy, after we give money and capital, proof that he can contribute positively to society.


2. Democracy tend to be harsh on rich guys having children.


Western civilization is great at ensuring that money go to those who deserve. I got to acknowledge that. They're very good. And that is why they're the richest countries in the world.


Westernized nations, like China, and Japan are like that too.


After getting money what? What's the point of having all the money in the world if you can't inherit it to your children?


Ironically when western civilizations have so much laws encouraging the poor to breed, it has so many laws discouraging the smart and productive from breeding.


Polygamy is illegal. Prostitution is illegal and it also prevents rich men from just paying women to breed babies. Sexual harassment laws prevent the rich from offering hiring and fucking combo. Paternity tests are illegal. Alimony and child support payment can be insanely high for the rich. Charlie Sheen Claims He Can't Afford Current Child Support Payments


When the poor breed, it's human's right. When the rich breed, it's legally impossible because the child support will bankrupt him. To avoid paying child support, a guy must stay in politically correct heavily regulated monogamous relationship.


Democracy see the rich as alpha males that need to be brought down. People tend to vote their best competitors out.


A privatized state will see that breeding tax paying contributing citizens as profitable. Importing them will be profitable too.


Hell, you can tax children. The rich will breed and pay the tax with no issue. In fact, we can require anyone that want to breed to buy another share. If Bill Gates have 10 children and welfare parasites have 1, poverty will be gone in no time.


3. Immigration among states


Say voters in Detroit messes up and their city becomes poor. Voters in New York is wise and their city becomes rich. What happens?


The poor go to the rich region. This provides very little incentive for population in one state to vote wisely for that state.


This means 2 problems. Voters have little incentive to be wise because they can simply move to another state. Also, bad voting strategy spread.


Sometimes it's hard to make a balance solution under humanitarian crisis.


Imagine you build a good house. Then your neighbor that breed 10 children build a bad house. And then their house broke. You accept that neighbor into your house, and then they just outvote you out of your house.


In democracy that's how things work. The refugees become citizens, citizens vote, and they got power simply by moving in.


It shouldn't be that way. If you build a good house, you should be able to shelter 10 starving children without going all the way losing your house. Hell, you should at least tell those children to wash dishes and clean the house up in exchange of your free logging.


I would make them make vlog praising how generous I am and promote some product. That’s the capitalistic way. Just kidding. Well, there are plenty poor children on the street I do almost nothing. It’s the normal way.


This is what happens with europe. If you allow refugees, they become citizens and pretty much own your country. The opposition then tell to just kick refugees out.


A profit seeking privatized states would make win win deals with those refugees. The man can become soldiers, the women can become sex workers, the land deed they own can be given to you in exchange of NATO protection. You can even enlarge your territory legitimately while making the people happy.


In a privatized state, only those buying shares become shareholders. And they must pay market price. That means they must like the way the state is run way more than “the market”. Anyone buying your shares will share your value, so to speak. They value it enough they’re willing to pay for it.


Let me give you a sample.


In some country like Indonesia, the muslims vote based on religion. A governor that govern very effectively is jailed for supposedly "insulting religions".


Jakarta governor Ahok jailed two years for blasphemy, ordered to serve term immediately


After that event, I am no longer a free border libertarian. Some people, living in shit hole deserves their shit hole.


I do not know how wise the muslims in Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, or whatever. But those are all fail states. I guess, not very wise. May be democracy isn’t that cool for muslims.


Then what happen? They become refugee, go to Europe, and then become citizen, and vote. How do they vote? The same mindset that makes their country messed up is then used to vote in europe. I am sure, in this forum, you have realized how many people are afraid of islamization of europe. You should be.


That's what happens under democracy. Bad idea leads to bad votes that lead to bankrupt regions. People in bankrupt regions move to richer regions bringing their bad ideas. Then they turn rich regions into bad regions too.


The europe have laws against allowing immigration to get in. However, people within a country do not have such laws. People in detroit is free to move to new York. Also any immigrant that just work will become citizens eventually.


Of course, the muslims in Indonesia aren't that bad. 30% still vote for Ahok. Ahok is now free and make very popular video blog. Also Indonesian's murder rate is only 1/10th of US. So I got to admit the muslims do have positive side.


Even some those who wants syariah or whatever, actually just want their own region. I'd say, great. Build whatever they wish, as long as not where I live or as long as I can just move somewhere else.


At first I was enraged at the muslims. However, I realized that the issue has something to do with democracy itself.


Some muslim countries that behave like private corporations, like Dubai and Qatar are doing well. Dubai is like a private corporation because most of the inhabitants there are immigrants. Dubai has to make his country attractive for "customers" or immigrants if they want to "monetize" those immigrants just like corporations have to make their products attractive if they want to benefit from customers.


And this is an important point. Dubai and Qatar aren’t even a democracy, and yet they are run well. They are Muslims, they're not democratic, and yet they are governed well. That's because Dubai is run like a corporation. It has owners, namely the king. It doesn't dilute ownership no matter how many populations it has. It has to compete with other kingdoms and countries, just like every other country. Almost all the people in Dubai consent to be there because Dubai is a country full of immigrants. And Dubai's citizens are getting good deals anyway.


Do I like it? Well, I still don't like Islam to be honest. Islam is way low on my totem pole of preferred ideology. I don't believe in any religion and don't like religion in general to be frank.


So yea, I won't move to Dubai. However, I also do not feel threatened or violated in any way that Dubai discriminate against non muslim. I simply don't go there. I also congratulate and admire their achievements to build a prosperous nation and wish them good luck.


In fact, I think western countries should mimic those islamic monarch in some area. Does Dubai accept muslim refugees? No.


Democracy have many political games to consider whether to accept refugees or not. The libtards in western countries may want to have more voters. So they will push for refugee to come and be citizens to strengthen their party in one or 2 generation.


A privatized country will just make mutually beneficial deal with those refugees. Get in. Work with higher tax or still low salary (like in Dubai), and get out once we're done.


Actually, western countries can help those refugees humanely and cheaply. Rich countries can buy the land of those refugees and protect and charge fair protection fee. I am sure Assad won't fight toe and nails if he has only to let go say, 20% of Syria under western protectorate. Rather than importing islamic ideology to Europe, the Europeans should be exporting their ideology to islamic world.


Rich successful countries should export their ideology to poor countries, not the other way around.


I am not talking about militaristic colonization. I am thinking about capitalistic colonization where the population in the land are happy too. They can't defend themselves from ISIS. Surely, they're willing to be NATO protectorate for mutually beneficial arrangements.


Successful companies got rich, have cash, and can buy smaller companies. Successful states should also be able to acquire poorer states with cash. The problem with western colonization is not the colonization itself. It's the violent that goes with it. Everybody was violent before capitalism.


Now, the chinese colonize Africa with money. That's good. Africans are getting prosperous. You know what would even be better for those africans? If western countries compete and do what the chinese do.


4. More individualized diverse choice for population


Under democracy, 51% people rule. 49% have to follow the 51%. In practice, the median are almost always moderate. But that leads to another problem. Everywhere in democratic countries. In every election you have a twin candidate.


Under privatized states, people can move from one state to another. Under states in United states, people can too.


However, there is no clear balance between right for people/customer to move around and right of state/corporations to accept those they think is useful.


In business, you don't accept all customers. You accept customers that are willing to pay. You don't accept those who you don't like or don't like you.


In my countries there are tons of people that don't like each other. The conservative muslims do not like ahmadiyah and non muslims. The libertarians, like me, do not like religious conservatives.


Say I am a libertarian. Say I meet fellow libertarians and say, hi let's found a libertarian province. We do, build the province, and become prosperous. Then what? The the religious conservative will just immigrate and then they just vote prohibiting porn, music, internet.


The same way, those conservative muslims want to build a syariah region in their provinces. Once they got what they like, the liberal and ahmadiyah and libertarian comes to stay with them and demand equal right, secularism, bla bla....


Kind of stupid right?


In privatized states, each state have more leeway on how to govern.


I am chinese. If I am an american, and those KKK wants to create a white only town, I would say go ahead. Awesome. What is so wrong with people not liking me wanting to live far away from me?


States in US have far less leeway. Also there are too many federal laws. Every population in a state have to pay huge income tax even though I am sure land tax is cheaper.


Privatization of states, provinces, and cities will lead to much more diverse choices. And you don’t need to convince anyone that you are right. Just vote with your feet and your wallet.


Do I need to convince other burger kings’ customers that burger king should provide pizza? No. I just go to pizza hut.


Do you need to convince other citizens that weed should be legal? In democracy you always argue argue argue. Aren’t you tired of arguing with people that don’t care about you and actually want you to suffer?


I do not blame burger king for not selling bike. Why should I blame Dubai government for favoring islam? In US, people will go nuts if a government favor any religion. Look, the more those statists have their own regions, the easier it would be for the libertarian too have their own regions too.

 

[grbb]

5. You can more easily know how well your country/states/province is run and you are benefited when it is run well so you have incentive to be correct

Most people can’t govern. Seriously. Most people can’t even lead 100 people. Most of us do not know information important to make decision. Also, most of us have different idea of what “good” is.

Good? Good for who? According to who? I would say anything good for me to be good for everyone is just or whatever.

We got to make the best decisions. Okay. Best decisions for who? What you think is good may be different than what I think is good. Even if we want the same thing, we may have very different ways to achieve it.

In business, all those good or bad boils down to one number. The share valuation growth. If valuation go up, it’s good. If valuation go down, it’s bad.

Simple right? You can know how well your corporation is run by looking at stock price. If you corporation produces killer product that customers want to buy, then the stock price go up.

Good for who? In corporation, rising stock price is pretty much good for everyone. Every share holder will equally be happy. It’s also what’s good for customers because otherwise they wouldn’t buy.

Not so in democracy.

I once had a chat with a conservative Muslim. He says Ahok is evil. Ahok is a chinese christian governor that's so popular he could be an Indonesian president based on popularity alone. Yap. A christian chinese president in a muslim majority country can get elected. His main barrier is not his popularity but some legal issues baring him from that. The legal issue is his previous conviction of blaspheming against islam.

I didn’t understand. I asked why? He said that the new governor gives money to mass organization. What they call mass organization, I call thugs. I was mad that my tax money goes to those thugs.

They said Ahok was evil because he wanted to legalize prostitution. His replacement is good for closing some prostitution parlor. I was confused. Everybody knows that there are tons of prostitute in Jakarta. They just pay cops. All those closing is just theatrical. There are many other places there. Also, why bother prohibiting something consensual? Ah yea, religion again, that I don’t believe in.

He complained that Ahok allowed reclamation project whose price is very expensive. Only the rich chinese can buy land there. We want it closed. I was confused again. When land price is up, using technology to create more land looks like a good idea. Why is this guy complaining? I suspects Ahok replacement to simply go back and forth on this issue while negotiating bribe behind everyone’s’ back.

I think solution for corruption is implementing software tracking that count money properly, which is what Ahok did. They think solution for corruption is morality that comes with religion. I showed them table showing that muslim countries have higher corruption rate. They simply say that the one at fault is the corrupt officials and not the religion.

Ahok build a lot in Jakarta and have plenty of government budget to spare. They don’t deny that. They think Ahok is bad precisely because there is too much left-over budget. They explained to me that government is not a business and money should be spent. Spent on what? Corruption?

Finally, he said that Ahok insulted Islam by saying that quran is used by lying. I was very confused. To many of my friends, religions are not only used for lying. There are strong indiciation that religions themselves are lies. And now this guy thinks that what he believes is something so sacrosanct that people must respect? Hello… Don’t we have science to trust.

Ahok’s supporters, called cebong, call those who opposes Ahok, “kampret”. Kampret is a special bat that hang upside down.

You can see pictures here:

Because the bat is upside down, the bat see the world upside down. What’s up looks like bottom and what’s bottom looks like up.

I think, think, and think. I wonder. I think they’re wrong. But no matter what I say, I can’t convince them. Or maybe, they’re not that wrong.

You know what. Maybe it’s one of the inherent problems in democracy. Maybe they’re not just wrong. Maybe they just want different things.

To me, sex outside marriage is humans’ right. I detest any violation of individual freedom. To them, sex outside marriage is sin. They think government must criminalize sin. We just have different opinions on what’s good or bad or should be criminalized.

I want economy to go up. To me, if land price goes up we should create more land. To them, it’s useless. They don’t benefit from the land anyway. As they said. It’s too expensive for them. They’re correct on this one. Land price increase rent tax. It benefits those who own land and hurt many voters. Georgism would have fixed this. However, as I mentioned, georgism is very dangerous for typical democracy.

We both do not like corruption. However, corruption is done behind the screen. Neither of us can proof beyond reasonable doubt that our choices are far less corrupt.

It’s very difficult for voters in democratic countries to decide who to choose. We just do not have enough information.

Voters can choose communism. When that fail, they gonna say, ah, what’s wrong is not communism, but some “evil individual” that govern wrong. The same with radical Muslims. They would vote based on their religions ignoring most scientific facts and when things go wrong, they would say it’s not their religions that went wrong.

Sometimes, I wonder why God, if He exists, decided that I am a citizen in the same country with people like that anyway. Why don’t they vote all they wish without me having to worry about what their choice is?

I look around the globe where I can move. I read the French creates a rule preventing men from doing paternity tests. I read high income taxes in socialist Europe. I read about huge murder rate in US. As a libertarian, living among these Muslims isn’t that bad. The libtards in western world are scarier. At least my country is killing terrorists rather than supplying them with weapon. I pitty those Muslim friends.

But some of their comrades start getting annoyed and I got to stay away. Shame. That Muslim, despite of his very different opinion, is quite friendly. He gave me feedback about life and make me think a lot. But his friends are dangerous.

They told me that it’s their right to vote based on their religion. I thought about it. Is it people’s right to vote for a corrupt governor that will destroy freedom and economy?

Under “normal” democracy yes. Can we drive under influence of alcohol? No. Can we vote under influence of religion? Yes.

So, you can’t be under influence of alcohol while driving your own car and endangering perhaps 1-19 people. But you can be under influence of religion while voting. Huray….

A few bad Muslims create islamophobia everywhere. And it’s reasonable. Those Muslims may not be evil. But they believe and willing to do whatever their religious leaders say. Those religious leaders may have a lot of conflict of interest with Ahok. After all, if Ahok keeps winning, Indonesia will become secular and those religious leaders will lost a lot of money.

But yea, they can’t see I am right. They don’t think in terms of politic, or economic or anything. They think based on religions. We just believe very different things. We just cannot agree. Voting is very difficult for voters in democratic countries.

And perhaps all those things I thought were wrong are simply their best interests. Most voters are poor and they want bigger share of economic growth.

So how does share holders choose then? Shareholders choice are much easier. They choose CEO that maximize return of their investment.

Any shareholders that do not like the decision of other shareholders can simply sell their share at market price. Any customers that do not like the company’s direction can buy from different shops.

When the choice is right, every shareholder is profited. What’s good for one shareholder is, more or less, what’s good for every other shareholder.

In democracy it’s the opposite. One voting blocs would vote in ways that hurt another voting bloc even when they themselves are not profited. Benefits from the state do not come from the success of the state but from how savvy a voting bloc can screw another. Too much bullshit. Too little numbers.

Under democracy we will never know what’s good for all of us because perhaps, there is no such thing. What’s good for me may be bad for you. Privatization of states will reduce that. That’s because each of us can choose to live in state that we like, and own shares of state we think is governed well.

 

[grbb]

Okay, in summary, the benefits are:

1. Poor people will make less kids. We simply don't give more share to those who breed more. Currently it's very obvious that tax payers breed tax payers and welfare parasites breed welfare parasites. May be not with 100% certainty, but it's pretty obvious. Profit maximizing states will correctly take that into account. Who wouldn't be correct when their profit is on the line.
2. The state may decide to encourage tax paying share holders to produce more children to create income. After all, tax payers are more likely to breed tax payers
3. Share holders have more incentive to be correct than citizens. Citizens in one state can vote wrong and move to another state. Share holders do not have such luxury. Move to any other state and he still "owned" the original state.
4. More diverse options. Currently, there is no state where MDMA is legal, no state where church can be build, no states where racist people can gather and make their own cities. If such cities exist, it's win win. It's win win, in general, to have people that don't like you, disagree with you, hate you, or you hate, to live somewhere else. No need for much debate. We don't debate whether Burger King should produce pizza. CEO of burger king decides than and customers that want pizza can go to Pizza hut.
5. Shareholders can vote more correctly than citizens. That's because shareholders can see how well the state is run based on valuation of shares.
6. Under "normal" democracy, shareholders and customers are combined. Often they should have different interests. For example, I can live in a libertarian state but recognize that tax payers in a christian city want to build a church and building such church would attract more tax payers. After doing some math, I would agree. Or I can live in a libertarian state and realize that liberal tax payers in a city want welfare.