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
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?
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
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: