Why states, nations, provinces, cities, and villages should be run like a business?

grbb

VIP Member
Oct 15, 2016
840
61
80
By the way, nations are already like businesses because they have to compete. The people are like customers that can simply move to another nation if they don't like it. The citizens, for most practical purposes are the owners. They vote to get benefits and enrich themselves.

However, moving to other nations are often difficult.

If we can extend this to cities and villages, that'll be great because moving to another village is easy. Whichever nation do this will be more prosperous.

Basically, cities, provinces, villages, need "owners", pursue profit, and compete for productive people and investments.

Why?

We all have different ideas on how government should be run. We are convinced we are right and those that's different are lying or wrong.

I wonder. Why argue? Why work hard so much to convince others that we're right?

Look at corporations in the world. McDonald produce Big Mac. Burger King produces Quarter Ponder. Do we have any laws how should they run their biz? For most cases no.

All we need are much simpler laws. McDonald, for example, cannot defraud customers. It cannot send armed thugs to Burger King. It cannot violate trade mark, etc. etc.

However, the company can decide all they want. They can decide what kind of burgers they gonna sell. They can decide how much they charge for it. They can decide how to market it.

What about if you don't like the way McDonald is managed? What about if the price is too high? You move to Burger King and via versa.

We all have different values on what we think is good government.

Some, like me, is 80% libertarian. Another wants theocratic rules. Some wants drugs and prostitution to be illegal. Some, like me, think it should be up to individuals.

What about, if all those people, live in different places? What about if people move to where they like?

Again, we do not need to micro manage how each places are governed. Some like income taxes, some raise revenue through land tax, some tax import. Some have freedom of speech, some have anti blasphemy laws. Why not each choose to go to where they like?

The states are like corporations. The citizens/kings/rulers are like the "owners". The population and tourists are like the customers. You don't like it, you don't go there. Why can't we do things like that?

Then we can try each of our idea. If you think drugs are dangerous and people need religions, go to a theocratic state. If you think religions are dangerous and some drugs can improve your IQ, go to a more libertarian state. Why not like that?

Then we no longer have to argue we're right. Each go to where we like. Each can see how the others do.

And that's the idea of competing privatized states

CDZ - Why I think the state itself should be more like private companies
Is this practical?

Yes.

In fact, our world is already like this. There are 164 nations competing for your investment, your tax money, and your contribution.

Even within countries, areas have autonomy. Within a country, you can move from one place to another.

Nations do not have owners. However, the citizens are for all practical purposes owners except that they can't buy and sell their ownership easily.

The thing is, under, say, democracies, for example, provinces do not have "owners". The people in one population can govern well, only to have the benefit shared with people from other provinces. Voters do not have incentive to vote correctly because if they mess up, they can just move to another province. So, we need an area where that doesn't happen.

Moreover, there are plenty of very poor countries. Countries that can be persuaded to relinquish it's sovereignty over certain regions for money. Investors, like Roger Ver, can buy autonomy or sovereignty from an established state, and govern all they wish.

It's win win. Many countries do not have money and do not have good government.

Even if they are democratic, they will just elect a tyrant.

Why not elect a capitalistic investor instead? Let's call that Capitalistic Colonialism. I am sure making win win solution with starved to death Africans won't be tough. We just have to be quick before they're too rich
smiley.gif


In fact, Roger Ver wanted to do something even more than that. He wanted to create a libertarian country and I think he wants almost full sovereignty. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/interview-roger-ver-his-plans-start-new-lib...

Even that is possible.

Competing Privatized State is more moderate. It doesn't have to be fully libertarian. I supposes, tax shall be low, and freedom should be high to attract productive people in. But that's pretty much it.

After that, let them govern like they do any corporations.

The surest way to know the truth, is to try many things and see the result. Why don't we do that?
 
Last edited:
Utter bullshit.

We've covered this many times before but in a nutshell governments and capitalist businesses work in opposite directions. The latter is out to enrich itself by exploiting the population, while the former is out to protect the population FROM that.

It isn't anywhere near a question of a country, state or province "competing' with others. Because the government of a country, state or province isn't SELLING anything.

Basically if either a businessman wants to run a government, or vice versa, each has to unlearn everything they've been doing and approach from the opposite direction. In the real world the capitalist ventures into government in order to, again, enrich himself by opening those doors from the inside --- the doors government puts up to keep the corporations from running the joint.
 
Nope, you’re wrong. People debate the virtues of different political/government systems, but I rarely hear anybody, including the OP, express how the relationship among citizens and their respective populations should influence the type of government.

My family group or clan is essentially a communist or socialist system. That being, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This system works for families because they share the bond of a family. They are personally care for each other. However the same dynamic does not exist as the population grows and you are asked to give up what you have for someone you have no relationship with.

Villagers will tend to care more for the folks in their own village than others living in another village miles away. And as the population and geography increases, less concern is given to those farther away.
 
Nope, you’re wrong. People debate the virtues of different political/government systems, but I rarely hear anybody, including the OP, express how the relationship among citizens and their respective populations should influence the type of government.

My family group or clan is essentially a communist or socialist system. That being, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This system works for families because they share the bond of a family. They are personally care for each other. However the same dynamic does not exist as the population grows and you are asked to give up what you have for someone you have no relationship with.

Villagers will tend to care more for the folks in their own village than others living in another village miles away. And as the population and geography increases, less concern is given to those farther away.

That is correct. I totally agree with you.

It is precisely because humans are selfish and mainly love themselves and their families things need to be governed like business.

Otherwise, how do you know rulers in a province,state, nation, would care or give fuck about your interests?

Why should Burger King cook delicious burger? Because if it's not, I would go to McDonald.

Why should cops work to solve crime? FYI, in my country, cops don't work. They expect bribes. There's a saying that if you lost chicken and report it to cops, you will lost cows.

One of my friend got his fingers chopped off by robbers. A cop told him that we can "kill" this robber for $5k so he doesn't harm anyone else. My friend agreed. Of course, it's all a lie. The cop just scammed. And my friend couldn't report to anyone because he's technically arranging murders.

You think my country is shit hole. Well... Think again. Murder rate is actually 1/10th of USA.

If provinces have owners and they have to compete, and cops are lazy like that, I will just go to another province and pay tax there. That will be a strong incentive to behave.

Take a look at another sample.

Remember Charlie Hebdo? Some muslims murder people for drawing Muhamad cartoon? Charlie Hebdo makes fun of every religions and no body are angry. May be a bit annoyed.

Some would argue that people shouldn't "blashpheme" against the muslims. Some would argue that freedom of speech is essential. I tend to like the latter argument but it's pointless. There is a simpler solution. Just don't live next to people you hate or hate you. If you like freedom of speech so much, including freedom to blaspheme against anyone, do not allow anyone that may disagree with it to live near you.

If I were a king in world war 2, I would accept jews and I would charge money for it. Now, some people would say it's immoral to charge money out of misery of others. Okay. I won't then. I would do what every other nations did at that time. Nothing. Then we had holocaust. Which was worse right?

There are reasons, very legitimate reasons, why one state is richer than other states. States that are more capitalistic/just/fair will get more prosperous. Surely the voters/owners/kings/dictators that embrace capitalism deserve more than those that repeatedly vote to favor systems that do not work.

There are also very legitimate reasons why some people are desired by many states and some people are not. States love investors and businessmen and tourists. Democratic states usually despise people looking for work and terrorists. I don't know. Let the market decide. Give people incentive to be "likeable" for "some states" rather than just trying to fit in for the state he's in.

My plan is, if the muslims (not all), the commies, the socialist, the racist, the bigots, make their country poor, and they do not like that, they will reform themselves, and get rich too. And then more and more countries will govern themselves justly and those who do get richer and can just exploit citizens of messed up countries.

Soon, the whole world will be just and prosperous. Just govern ourselves well. The rest will copy. Look at how capitalism and democracy become popular in many countries now? Make sure great idea spread and those who practice it are well profited. It already is. I think I want the link to be more clear.
 
Last edited:
Utter bullshit.

We've covered this many times before but in a nutshell governments and capitalist businesses work in opposite directions. The latter is out to enrich itself by exploiting the population, while the former is out to protect the population FROM that.

It isn't anywhere near a question of a country, state or province "competing' with others. Because the government of a country, state or province isn't SELLING anything.

Basically if either a businessman wants to run a government, or vice versa, each has to unlearn everything they've been doing and approach from the opposite direction. In the real world the capitalist ventures into government in order to, again, enrich himself by opening those doors from the inside --- the doors government puts up to keep the corporations from running the joint.
The state sell something.

If a state have low crime rate, that means "safety" is a feature in living in those state.

If a state honor individuals' freedom, that means many libertarians are willing to go to the state and pay taxes there. Here, freedom is also a feature.

If a state have just court with clear laws, many investors would invest in those states.

If a state is secular, many atheists would want to live there. If a state is religious, many muslims want to live there. Those add values.

If states legalize and tax vice, that too is potential income for the state.

If a state build infra structure, that means people can meet people easily in that club called state.

People are willing to pay more money to live in well governed state than in normal states. In fact, land price will go up in well governed state, and a state that tax land, instead of income, can go rich.
 
Utter bullshit.

We've covered this many times before but in a nutshell governments and capitalist businesses work in opposite directions. The latter is out to enrich itself by exploiting the population, while the former is out to protect the population FROM that.

It isn't anywhere near a question of a country, state or province "competing' with others. Because the government of a country, state or province isn't SELLING anything.

Basically if either a businessman wants to run a government, or vice versa, each has to unlearn everything they've been doing and approach from the opposite direction. In the real world the capitalist ventures into government in order to, again, enrich himself by opening those doors from the inside --- the doors government puts up to keep the corporations from running the joint.
The state sell something.

If a state have low crime rate, that means "safety" is a feature in living in those state.

If a state honor individuals' freedom, that means many libertarians are willing to go to the state and pay taxes there. Here, freedom is also a feature.

If a state have just court with clear laws, many investors would invest in those states.

If a state is secular, many atheists would want to live there. If a state is religious, many muslims want to live there. Those add values.

If states legalize and tax vice, that too is potential income for the state.

If a state build infra structure, that means people can meet people easily in that club called state.

People are willing to pay more money to live in well governed state than in normal states. In fact, land price will go up in well governed state, and a state that tax land, instead of income, can go rich.

You didn't address my post at all.
 
Utter bullshit.

We've covered this many times before but in a nutshell governments and capitalist businesses work in opposite directions. The latter is out to enrich itself by exploiting the population, while the former is out to protect the population FROM that.

It isn't anywhere near a question of a country, state or province "competing' with others. Because the government of a country, state or province isn't SELLING anything.

Basically if either a businessman wants to run a government, or vice versa, each has to unlearn everything they've been doing and approach from the opposite direction. In the real world the capitalist ventures into government in order to, again, enrich himself by opening those doors from the inside --- the doors government puts up to keep the corporations from running the joint.
The state sell something.

If a state have low crime rate, that means "safety" is a feature in living in those state.

If a state honor individuals' freedom, that means many libertarians are willing to go to the state and pay taxes there. Here, freedom is also a feature.

If a state have just court with clear laws, many investors would invest in those states.

If a state is secular, many atheists would want to live there. If a state is religious, many muslims want to live there. Those add values.

If states legalize and tax vice, that too is potential income for the state.

If a state build infra structure, that means people can meet people easily in that club called state.

People are willing to pay more money to live in well governed state than in normal states. In fact, land price will go up in well governed state, and a state that tax land, instead of income, can go rich.

You didn't address my post at all.

You said governments don't sell anything.

I disagree. Good governments are in demand. Many are willing to pay to live in better governed countries just like people are willing to pay to go to Disneyland. That's, while technically not selling something, is kind of is.

I am willing to pay to go to provinces, states, countries that's secular, respect freedom, and have lower taxes. Currently, where I live is good enough.
 
Utter bullshit.

We've covered this many times before but in a nutshell governments and capitalist businesses work in opposite directions. The latter is out to enrich itself by exploiting the population, while the former is out to protect the population FROM that.

It isn't anywhere near a question of a country, state or province "competing' with others. Because the government of a country, state or province isn't SELLING anything.

Basically if either a businessman wants to run a government, or vice versa, each has to unlearn everything they've been doing and approach from the opposite direction. In the real world the capitalist ventures into government in order to, again, enrich himself by opening those doors from the inside --- the doors government puts up to keep the corporations from running the joint.
The state sell something.

If a state have low crime rate, that means "safety" is a feature in living in those state.

If a state honor individuals' freedom, that means many libertarians are willing to go to the state and pay taxes there. Here, freedom is also a feature.

If a state have just court with clear laws, many investors would invest in those states.

If a state is secular, many atheists would want to live there. If a state is religious, many muslims want to live there. Those add values.

If states legalize and tax vice, that too is potential income for the state.

If a state build infra structure, that means people can meet people easily in that club called state.

People are willing to pay more money to live in well governed state than in normal states. In fact, land price will go up in well governed state, and a state that tax land, instead of income, can go rich.

You didn't address my post at all.

You said governments don't sell anything.

I disagree. Good governments are in demand. Many are willing to pay to live in better governed countries just like people are willing to pay to go to Disneyland. That's, while technically not selling something, is kind of is.

I am willing to pay to go to provinces, states, countries that's secular, respect freedom, and have lower taxes. Currently, where I live is good enough.

That's still not "selling" anything.

Your basic flawed premise here lies on the foundation that governments are in some kind of "product competition". They're not.
 
I am missing the point here. Whatsapp, facebook, also don't sell anything. That doesn't mean they are not a business. If you provide value to some people you deserve money. It doesn't always mean you sell something.

Is Disneyland sell something? You just pay to get there right?

Countries are selling visa. That's selling. Visa cost money. You wanna go to US you pay visa like you buy ticket to go to cinema. Countries raise tax. And in return protect people.

Now some people want only protection and don't care about welfare check. However, they have huge income and taxed a lot. Those people are now moving somewhere else and use every trick in the book for not paying taxes. We got Panama papers. We got Jeff Bezos paying 0 tax.

Why not tax land instead of income? More efficient. Why not tried? Because a country is not run like a business yet. If a country is run like a biz, I bet countries will tax people more efficiently and provide what people actually want.


Actually this is one of the reason why I think europe should mimic some of what those muslims do

https://i.stack.imgur.com/6qhMn.png
6qhMn.png


Why bent over backward to appease those who are too different than your main "customer base" or your "share holders".

If I own a burger king, do I offer Pizza to respect minority right of my customers that want Pizza instead of burger? No. I own burger king, I cook burger. Those who wants Pizza go to Pizza hut. The same way, why should europe bent over backward for "minorities"? There are plenty of muslim countries around for those who like syariah?
 

Forum List

Back
Top