When do Democracies Fail?

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

When interests are not proportional.

Imagine a corporation where you have 80% stake. And another 20 people have 20% stake.

One man one vote.

No body would care how the corporation will make profit. The 20 people will simply vote that the corporation gives all the money to all people.

In Jakarta there is a mosque that like to sound adzan. Adzan is a sensitive issue in Indonesia with one girl sent to jail for complaining against it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indonesia-blasphemy-woman-jailed-insulting-islam-mosuqe-buddhist-meiliana-a8501191.html

The way things work in Indonesia is that the majority of the population is muslim. However, the non muslims, particularly the chinese, are way richer. How rich? I don’t know.

Another story that I know is about a mosque in the middle of a real estate project.

The owner of real estate project definitely wants the mosque to be demolished. After all that one mosque is “noisy”. The property developer wants his house to sell and the mosque is not advantageous for him.

I think in cases like this, owners of land should have “bigger” vote than any normal people. Not necessarily an issue in this case because the muslim is also minority there.

However, there are cases where many poor people who illegally squat on government land have the same voting power with those actually owning the land.

When voting power does not depend on contribution

In US, democracy gives disproportionate power to those who simply have more children. We have generations and generations of cradle to grave welfare parasites.

Most people in democracy do not like accepting refugee or even cheap workers because of this. That’s because those refugee will become citizen with equal voting power. This lead to inefficiency. Why should rich American wash their own dishes if they can pay cheaper mexican to do so? But if you accept them, they can vote more money out of your paycheck through income tax.

And that leads to an important point. Why should someone have power to run your life simply because he’s born at the right place or come to your country? If anything, it doesn’t serve your interests at all.

However, democracy weighted by interests and contribution works just fine. In corporation we have one share one vote. So it works pretty fine.

When some voting blocs can vote to steal from another voting blocs

Giving dividend to shareholders is also another reason why corporate democracy works better than normal democracy.

In normal democracy, some voting blocs would vote against the interest of other voting blocs. The result is often legalized stealing. The effect of voting blocs voting against one another’s interest results in a very unnecessarily complex social program.

We got job creation for those who gets job, we got unemployment benefits for those who don’t. And we got affirmative action for those who are less likely to get a job.

Combined those tend to benefit citizens in equal share for everyone anyway. So why not just pay dividend and get done with it.

There’s a parody of this issue here http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/21128617/

In corporate democracy, voting blocs cannot vote to steal from another voting blocs. Every share got the same dividend. Hence, in corporate democracy people vote on how to make the “pie” bigger rather than how to get more pie.

Corporate decisions are often more swift. Normal democracy is so bloated.

When catering to the need of all kind of people is inefficient/where it’s far more efficient to make certain niches happy than all people happy

Now for minority rights. Market mechanism protect minority right far better than democracies. Minority shareholders can just sell shares at market price. Minority customers can simply buy from different company.

This gives “legitimacy” to decisions made by the majority shareholder.

The market solution for minority right is efficient. If you don’t like what we’re doing just get out. We don’t expect microsoft to produce noodle. Each corporations try to make “some people” happy. The rest are none of their concern. If someone is unhappy, as long as their right is not violated, then no problem. Who cares. Those who like pizza can go to pizza hut instead of microsoft.

In democracies, 2 things happen, and both are bad. One thing that happens is the majority oppress the minorities. We see extermination of jews, armenian. We see discrimination and pogroms against chinese.

Usually, the one screwed by the mob are the best and brightest. The race or ethnic that’s slaughtered are often the most industrious ones.

Another thing a democracy can do is to have laws protecting minorities right. This often leads to the majority bending over backward for the minority. That is also not efficient.

Normal democracies protect minority right with a band aid. And the result is even worse. Now small member of society can pretty much halt normal decision making for the whole group. Normal democracy becomes very “bloated” because of this.

I’ve heard in US, a muslim can sue a supermarket so he is replaced in a job where he doesn’t have to help people buying pork. The japanese address this issue by simply making it very difficult for muslims to come to Japan. That actually hurts muslims.

French ban burqa and gets a lot of protest. It seems that muslim countries solve this issue easily. Don’t listen to protest. So what if their country is a muslim country? As a non muslim, I simply don’t go there.

I’ve also heard that muslim terrorists slaughter people in Charlie Hebdo. I’ve heard that such acts are supported by many muslim voters. In western countries, you can make fun of Jesus, Buddha, and Khrisna. But you risk getting shot by terrorists if you make fun of Muhammad.

So to protect some minorities “right” from being offended, the majority in western civilization is bending over backward toward their small number of radical muslim overlords. Very inefficient.

Instead, the french could declare that the nation caters to those who love freedom of speech niche. Those who don’t like it can just get out.

Why not have a sensible solution. Sure they can come but they obey the will of the original citizens or majority? Well… Kind of tricky in normal democracy because once a person immigrate he can vote too.

I think it’s simply more efficient for people that don’t fit on society to simply get out.

Look at the secular in Indonesia. If they really want secular countries, shouldn’t they get out?

Or look at the muslim in france. If they don’t like burqha ban, why not just get out?

It’s simply far more efficient for each countries to cater to their “niches” then trying to be fair and equal for all kind of people. We have islamic countries. We have secular countries. Why can’t each people go where they like.

Under normal democracy this doesn’t seem to work out really well. We are all minorities in some issues. There’s always a question why should A that gets out and why not B. Also many feel that minorities also own part of a country and hence should be compensated if they get out.

In corporate democracy this is not a problem. Again, any minority shareholder can get out and be compensated for his share. Any visitors/people/customers to disneyland that do not like disneyland can simply write a bad review and go somewhere else.

In normal democracies, most benefits toward citizens only happens when the citizen lives in the same country. Welfare, jobs creation, would benefit citizens of french only if they live in french. So minorities that actually don’t fit french culture, and don’t like freedom of speech, and don’t even speak french, choose to come and stay and breed in french.

Making them go then have much higher political costs and require much bigger determination even though it’s the efficient thing to do.

If citizens are replaced by shareholders, those who do not like the way the french is doing things can sell citizenship to those who like freedom of speech. So those who don’t fit will be compensated for “leaving” making things easier for everybody.

When commitment to freedom of speech is low

Democracies require people to be reasonably well informed. Well, some people think that certain ideas are sacrosanct it’s beyond critic. So it’s easy to package corruption with religious values. Anyone criticizing it go to jail.

A sample case of this is Ahok’s case. Indonesia is a very corrupt countries. Ahok cleans up corruption. Then what? People uses religion to tell Indonesians that they cannot vote for Ahok because he’s non muslims. Their true motives is to steal money from government. Obviously they don’t honestly tell their true motives are.

Ahok, jokingly says that people are being lied to by using religion. Ahok was sentenced to jail for 2 years. He’s still a very popular politicians that got 44% of the vote in the election. All because he said something that most westerners accept as facts, that religions are often used for lying.

Notice Ahok is already very polite. He didn’t say that quran is a lie or that the ulama is lying. He said that someone is using it for lying. But restrictions of freedom of speech is very rubbery on this obviously politically charged accusation.

My guess is Ahok’s case is typical. This explains why corruption is higher in muslim countries. This also explains why most muslim countries are not democracy. This also explains why most christian countries are also not democracies before they’re secular.

Religion is like a wrench in a machine in democracy.

When objectives are unclear and hard to measure

Corporations have clear measurable objectives, namely maximization of investors’ return.

Because citizenship doesn’t have valuation, cannot be bought or sold, and does not pay dividend, people do not know for sure whether their leaders are doing a good job or not.

Sure corruption is legal. But what about using government budget to subsidize gasoline? OR giving money to some sport clubs? Or mobs? Or to build church? Or mosques? It’s not clear whether that’s corruption or not. It’s obviously rent seeking.

Again, we don’t have problems with this in corporations.

A democratic state should consider converting all their citizenship into shares. Allow those who don’t fit the state’s value to sell their citizenship/shares to those willing to pay, and then can convert back to normal democracy again.

This is a post that advocates changing normal democracies to be more like democracies practice in corporation http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/21059253/

Turning Countries into Companies

It’s being discussed here

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/what-would-hapen-if-a-province-a-small-town-or-a-whole-country-is-governed-like-corporations.716348/#post-21048027

Let’s start with a small poor sparsely populated village or forest. The people in the village decides to convert their citizenship into stocks. The state agree to give autonomy. The people in the villages, that are small in number and poor, agree. The land have very low cost. Tada. Investors coming and try to create a “start up government”

Not much change.

One man one vote becomes one man one share, one share one vote.

The small differences are

1. With shares, people don’t just get more shares if they produce more children. This solves the main cause of poverty. Poverty happens because welfare parasites keep producing large number of cradle to grave welfare parasites. Parents that produce more than 2 children will have to buy more citizenship share to ensure that their kids have citizenship too. If they can’t pay or unlikely to be able to pay after 1 children, government can require them to do some semi permanent contraception till they can.
2. Refugees coming do not get more shares (in democracy, population have voting power. Children of refugee have the same right to vote as children of original citizens. In ancient Rome, only “founders” family can vote. Then the rest can vote. Then all Rome’s colonies get Roman citizenship.).
3. Shares can be inherited. It can be bought and sold (perhaps with some restrictions)
4. Rich investors that want to build massive infrastructures can buy more and more shares. So, the small town or provinces can “go IPO”. Even very backward and poor country can benefit from well managed investments.
5. Some restrictions on buying and selling stocks may exist. For example, each population must have a minimum of 1 share. The state’s decisions must still be approved by at least 30% of the population. Residences that do not like new rules should have ample of time to leave, and so on…
6. We will call our leader CEO, instead of President. The function is the same. Like all CEO, the CEO of the state will worry about increasing valuation of the state and maximizing share holder value.
7. Shares will have valuation. We will have market for citizenship/shares.
8. Like corporations, the state will have strong incentive to produce maximum “value” at the least cost. Is this road worth building? Well, if we build this road, how many people would want to live here? How much would they be willing to pay for residency permit? All those are answerable questions.
9. Residency permit, like shares, can also be bought and sold. If I prefer to live in normal states, I can rent my residency permit to foreigners for extra cash.
10. You want to vote more? You buy more share. The money is used to build infrastructure that will increase revenue say, from land taxes or any taxes. Taxes become far more consensual here because anyone that doesn’t like it can simply don’t go there. This is a mini state whose main population will be immigrants.

Some possible immediate “decisions” by share holders would be

Most governments’ benefit will be replaced by standard dividend like in corporation.

Share holders will be obsessed with return of capital (dividend + increased valuation of their share) rather than how the state is run.

Under democracy, when your government is rich, you tend to get the benefit of your country’s economic success in the form of “higher wages” in government “created jobs.” That means to reap the benefit of your country’s economic success you need to stay in the country.

That means a lot of resources are spend by bickering voting blocks to get more share of the pie often at the expense of other voting blocks. Some voters want their country to move toward secularism. Another voters want their countries to be more religious. Most of the debate in democratic countries revolves around that.

Imagine if Microsoft told the shareholders that it will create jobs for every share holder. It doesn’t make sense right? It will benefit share holders that are good at programming. The opposition will then demand “affirmative action” to ensure the job goes to them. Microsoft will then have worse programmers because it has to take into account low IQ programmers that are now protected under “anti discriminatory laws”.

You got the point. All those are typical problems in democratic countries. Government benefits tend to benefit some people more than the other and the whole politic in democracy is each group of people try to get more benefit at the expense of other citizens. At the end, benefits of each citizen is roughly the same actually. They each can vote once. Most of the benefits go to lying politicians though that keep gaming the system.

In corporations, it’s simple. Every share gets the same dividend. Equal share for everyone. Okay, corporations is a bit commie in this regard. You have the same share, why should you get more or less than other share holders? If other share holders, or other people work more, then they get more, but that’s usually come as salary instead of more dividend. Is it a good idea to pay workers with dividends than just salary? Well, we got stock options for that. It could be, but that’s not the norm in general.

The CEO of Microsoft concentrate on making the “pie” bigger than figuring out how to share the benefit of the pie.

If states/provinces/countries are governed like companies, a share holder does not need to reside in the states/provinces/countries. Anyone that doesn’t like the way their states are governed can simply move somewhere else. As long as the states are governed well they will still reap the benefit of those.

Say 90% of the population is secular. Say the state decides that being even more secular will attract more secular investments, like science. That move, if done correctly, will improve the state’s valuation in stock market. A religious people in that state can simply move to another place and still enjoy the benefit of increased valuation.

The same way, if 80% of the population is religious, a secular person doesn’t have to argue about how wonderful a secular state is. If the state goes toward more religious direction, it may attract investments from arab, again increasing the valuation. That secular person can move somewhere else and still receive the benefit of his well managed state.

It’s similar with stocks. You don’t need to buy microsoft stocks to enjoy Bill Gates’ leadership. If you own microsoft stocks, you will receive the benefit of Bill Gates’ leadership in the form of higher stock price whether you use linux, max, or windows.

Customers’ interests are protected by buying others’ product. The same way, a residence interests are protected by simply moving to other states. In democracy, it’s difficult because most benefit of being a citizen of a rich state comes only when the person live in that state. Giving dividend instead of “creating jobs” would eliminate that issue.

The state may have a stake at market price of land in that state.

Well governed states are attractive to investors and people. That will increase land value.

Infrastructure, for example, improves land price.

Proper and just court will make people feel save. That too will improve land value.

Take a look at infrastructure, for example. Say some road costs $4 billion and the total land price increase by $6 billion, the whole thing should be done. Usually, the state pays for the infrastructure cost and the land owners enjoy the increased land price. The result is that most voters simply do not like it. So a decision to spend $4 billion on infrastructure becomes complex even though the “pie” got bigger by $2 billion.

One ways to do this is the company/state will buy an option to buy land at some locked in price. Say the price of a piece of land is $1k in 2018. The state have a right to buy that land for $1.1k for 100 years. Now the state can spend $4 billion on that infrastructure, the land price improved to $6 billion. The land owners, whose land price increase, just buy the option back from the state. $2 billion profit for the state.

Another way would be to simply tax land the way George Hendry suggest. The state spend $4 billion for road, and expect to get extra revenue from land tax. The present value of those extra land tax is expected to be $6 billion.

I can think of many ways. But I think this should be at least tried in the poorest region of the world with sparse population as possible.

Cost of military will decrease

Instead of having it’s own Army, the state can just pay for protection from British, or some other powerful countries. The british empire used to have many vasal states. Some, like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Qatar is very prosperous now. It doesn’t make sense for a small state the size of a village to have it’s own army. Ask NATO or SEATO or Warsaw or the Chinese for protection. Better yet, ask all of them to share protection duty. Then we’ll solve the issue.

The state can handle small crimes. Invasion is handled by protectors that also own share in the state.

The failure of republic of Minerva is that they’re attacked by Tonga, a relatively weak country. If someone want to create another libertarian state, for example, just pay some power to protect the country and that problem would go away. Minerva Reefs.

The british empire has a good history of protecting a group of people well. Qatar used to be a british protectorate and is now a very rich country that doesn’t have to “wage war” like the rest of middle east. Hong Kong is a british colony that for years are far more prosperous than other regions in china that is “not colonized”.

Most drugs and vice Can be taxed for Extra Revenue

In some democratic regions like California and Colorado, this is actually done. However, in most democratic area, drugs, gambling and prostitution are illegal.

Why?

Simple. Baptist and Mafia combo. People that do not use drugs want it criminalized. People that do not gamble or use drugs have little incentive to get it legalized. People that use it bribe officials. That bribed officials then use religions to trick people to keep drugs a crime.

If the state is governed like corporation, share holders have a strong incentive to legalize and tax drugs and prostitution and gambling rather than prohibiting it. It increases the states’ revenue and hence valuation. It increases the shareholders’ share.

Those who disagree can simply move to other places and still receive the benefit of the share’s dividend. Or they can just sell their citizenship/share and move on.

Those who have a say in the state are those that contribute to it

In corporations, we don’t have one man one vote. We have one share one vote. The founder, the CEO, the super programmer, have bigger share than the normal workers. In democracy, every babies born and every refugees have the same number of vote irrelevant of merit.

If countries are governed like corporations, then a person need to contribute something first, or buy shares at market price, before his vote counts.

You do not need to fear that refugees will “change your country”. Only immigrants that like your value so much they’re willing to pay the market price to get in will join you.

People Coming In Will Share Your Values

There is no one right way to cook noodles. There is no one right operating system. I use windows and android. I don’t argue day and night with Mac users.

Those who like android can buy android phone and those who like Mac can buy Mac.

I do not vote in ABC mart or DEF mart. If I do not like the rules in one mart, I buy stuffs from another mart. If I do not like movies in GHI cinema, I wll go to JKL cinema. I don’t even care how those marts and cinemas are governed. Yet, as customers, I am de facto king.

Customers are king under capitalism far more than people under democracy. With democracy you got to follow what the majority wants. If the states are like private corporations, you can just move the states you want.

If there is no one right way to cook noodles, why do we insist in one right way to govern countries? Why not just move to the one we like most?

The same with privatized countries/states/cities. Let the cities do it’s best to produce environments that best attract productive individuals. Those who do not like it can just go somewhere else. In fact, if the one that go somewhere else is an ex citizen, chance is that person have a share. He could sell those share at increased price.

We are paying those who do not like us to go and we get paid by those wanting to get in. So those who go to the state will tend to have the same values with the states.

Libertarians will go to relatively libertarian states. The muslims go to muslim states. The democratic will go to democratic states. The commies go to commies state. And so on.

We can prevent many mass wars or eliminate poverty in the whole world quickly.

Many people live in extreme poverty. The main cause is mismanaged government. Perhaps, they need investors and better government?

Tell the people in Somalia. Lend me 5% of your country. Let us govern. Let’s see if the area we govern is more prosperous than the area you govern your self. It’s a good deal. Somalian that like it can move to your area, and those who don’t can move somewhere else.

Rich countries or persons can heavily invest in that state and own shares of a state. It’s like a very benign colonization. Unlike Gengish Khan that mass murders cities and use forces, the arrangements can be far more consensual.

Rich countries can invest in the private vasal state, and get voting power. When land price increased, they then sell the share to other states.

We can see the better ideologies by comparing results

Which ideology is the most right? Theocracy? Democracy? Capitalism? Libertarianism? Georgianism? Will legalizing drugs cause societies’ collapse? Will tolerating gays make societies’ collapse? Is diversity good?

If there are many competing states, we can just see the valuation of the shares of those state. It goes up, somethings goes right. If it goes down, then something is wrong. We no longer need to consult scriptures on how to govern well. Just look at what’s working.

You know what?

Just like noodles, what’s best for a person may not be the best for another. Why not try them all and move to where you like?

Samples of Similar or Contrary Ideas

Not all of these ideas end up well. But we learn from our mistake. The fact that the ideas are at least tried shows that there is some truth in the principle.

  1. Libertarian hedonist cruise ships. In those ships, many things that used to be illegal becomes legal. Of course, the owner of the ship provide those at heavily marked up price. The price for vacation to such ships are very expensive. This idea simply move the stuff from ships to cheap land.
  2. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Qatar. It’s basically a British Colony that becomes very prosperous. The Chinese, like all people, tend to prosper under just minarchist rules. With few rules, the people get prosper themselves, according to Lao Tze, an ancient chinese philosopher. During the latter half of 20th century, the British is more just and light than the communist China. Hence, Hong Kong was far more prosperous than China. Qatar happens to have wise kings, which can be CEO. Things work out.
  3. Feudal lords in ancient time actually own the whole land. So there is little conflict of interests between land owners and land rulers. Under current democracy, typical voters do not usually own land creating a lot of unnecessary conflict. The problem with Feudalism is that land are usually fought and taken rather than “developed” or bought. We can change that.
  4. In corporations people tend to get shares proportionally with their contribution. In ancient democracy, this principle is not broken. Only conscript-able males can vote. In ancient times, a state need conscript-able men to defend the state (or attack another). So democracy is natural state for such state. Nowadays, women can vote too. Welfare parasites can vote too. Many of which contribute so little to the state and yet can vote. Perhaps we can make a win win deals with welfare parasites, if we just pay them to stop breeding?
  5. Ottoman empire provides “protection” to it’s vassal state without requiring the vassal state to embrace Islam. The same way, democratic countries can provides protection to it’s vassal state without requiring the vassal state to be democratic.
  6. In businesses, smart people build start up biz that provides better product for customers. Why don’t we have start up countries too?
  7. The Mongol empire controls large part of land. While very cruel, there are many things positive too. Tax is low (around 10% from 45%). The powerful Mongol let the people govern themselves as long as they don’t oppose their light rulers. The mongol empire was one of the first secular empire. Also, we need to keep in mind, that before the Mongols, the people are busy killing each other anyway. The same goes when white people invade south America. Now, people don’t normally kill each other and hence we need to offer them something better.
  8. Republic of Minerva is something that “almost work”. The problem is just lack of protectors. Man libertarian countries are proposed to be done “off the shelf” or far from “main land”. If the libertarian don’t insist on being “too libertarian” they can make some country closer to commerce centers. Commerce is essential for libertarians. Also they will easily get a protector like Qatar kingdom. Minarchist is better than straightforward “pure” libertarianism for most people. We just need a way to prevent governments from growing too big. And that mechanism is called competition among governments.
  9. BIC, VOC, and Free Congo Republic are samples of companies that “govern” nations. However, the way they gain power is through violent, without consent of the people. Also they seized large land that already have reasonable wealth there making the population worse off. In our proposal, the people can vote no and they can just move to other states.
  10.  Actual democracy. That one is actually  not bad. Democracy replaces war. Democracy ensures that a decisions would benefit majority of people.  Median vote theorem means decisions in democracy tend to be moderate. It’s a great default state when shit hit the fan like in Syria. It’s a good starting condition. Actual democracy isn’t bad. However, insisting that the whole world must be democracy all the time creates tons of loopholes. Currently, majestic welfare parasites simply get more and more of their  share by simply breeding more children. No body knows who “owns” a democratic country and for whose benefit the country is ultimately run. If it’s done for the benefit of citizens, why dilute citizenship by giving it freely to newborn babies? If it’s done for the benefit of all population in the region, why give free citizenship away to refugees? If for the benefit of the whole world, why not just spend money opening “branches” and subsidiary in Africa and middle east instead of inviting refugee to come? At the end, democratic countries are run to the benefit of corporate lobbyist. Perhaps defining more clearly who should get the benefit of countries can open doors to many efficiencies?
  11. Ancient vasal states. Small kingdom cannot protect itself against large kingdom. By paying tax or tribute to a larger power, they can achieve prosperity without having to have a large army. Sounds like a win win solution. Currently, under international laws, there is no longer protectorate and vasal. All countries are equally sovereign.
  12. Actual corporations. Contrary to popular believes, Microsoft and Google is a bit democratic. The share holders do not run the company directly, but they vote for CEO that knows how to run their company.  Well, not exactly one man one vote. Typical shareholders have no idea how to run a company anyway. However, people vote proportional to their “share” and those share is proportional to actual contribution. This is something that all organization should mimic. This is 90% of the point of this post.
  13. Ming Dinasty China. This great dinasty managed to defeat the Mongol. However, it’s too conservative and moderate. Series of grossly incompetent Emperor is chosen based on birth right bringing the whole country to collapse. One Ming emperor was literally on strike smoking opium. The last Chinese emperor torture Ming’s best general to death. Big corporations often avoid this fate. In corporations, only the shares itself is inherited, not the job. Typical corporations avoid the pitfall of Ming Dinasty. CEO post is not inherited. CEO is a well paid job with stock options as the lion share of the compensation.
  14. Rise and fall of Ahok, an Indonesian politicians. https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Ahok-jailed. Thanks to democracy, the people can finally vote for a competent governor. Ahok running mate, Jokowi, is now the president for Indonesia. Democracies have a weak point. We don’t know where we should draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech. As now, radical muslims are “free” to promote their agenda. However, Ahok, knowing that the movements are in alliance with corrupt officials, said that the whole process is a scam using religion. Ahok is then convicted of blasphemy. While many people support Ahok, many Indonesians, who are muslim majority, do not wish to remove anti blasphemy laws. With such flexible laws, it’s very difficult to voice one’s opinion. Corrupt officials can claim that someone is “offended” and jail any competing politicians. Liberals in Canada and Europe also have laws against “hate speech”. They then simply labels any speech that do not conform to their wish, “hate speech.” If a country is split into many autonomous private regions, none of this would be an issue. The secular can just move to secular regions and the religious can just try their religious idea in their region. The problem is that the autonomy is often limited. The law that hurt Ahok is not a local law but a national law. Also if one system is more successful than the other, the people that messed up their provinces can simply move to another successful province. We need a company that can buy cheap land, build cheap land, and own the cheap land.
  15. The founding father of USA originally wants only land owners to vote. Not sure what’s the consideration is. However this makes perfect sense. Those who do not own any land can simply move somewhere else. Those who own land wants his land value to improve. Changing voting laws to land owners only, proportional to value of land ownership will of course be very unpopular. It’s not really stable either. When land owners can vote, peasants will be conscripted to fight to protect property right. Southern Song dynasty and South Vietnam lose war because the people do  not like the deal. However, making win win deals with sparsely populated place with cheap land and poor population can be easily done. Vote from the poor is very cheap, it’s a bargain under democracy. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Founding-Fathers-only-want-land-owners-to-be-allowed-to-vote-and-if-it-was-still-that-case-today-would-we-be-20-trillion-in-debt 
  16. China. Chinese is now investing so much money all over the world. The Chinese eventually “govern” the whole Africa peacefully. Like Europeans during colonial age, The Chinese have little compunction with corrupt leaders. However, being in 21st century, Chinese colonization is more benign than previous ancient colonization. We didn’t have genocide yet. Ethiopia economy grows by 10% year by year. If the people are not too stupid, it’s actually win win. In ancient time, the Chinese didn’t bother colonizing, and Europe controls the whole world. Now, the Chinese do it and the European, feeling guilty of past colonization, didn’t bother. I think a moderate approach is what the world need. Colonize anyway. But don’t bring guns and bombs. Bring money and better government. Make win win deals. If colonizing power compete with each other in offering better deals to the people in their colony instead of seizing it through war, everyone will be benefit. The colonizing power and the colony itself.
  17. Wesphalian sovereignty. 194 countries competing for investment and people. This is the main source of freedom in the whole world. However, creating a new country is tough. You can’t just fill online application, register it at UN, and get your own country. A country need to be reasonably self sufficient when it comes to power. Also, the most powerful countries now are democratic countries. In democratic countries, the main way a person can receive the benefit of successful countries is if he leaves in the country. A voting population is then like a voting customers. Some customers want perfect country with 0 cost. We call this people libertarians. Some customers wants the country to produce what they want to consume, again, with lower costs. We call this jihadist. The current system is fine. We just need better ones to be tried.

Can there be a case for conscription?

I am not encouraging conscription. I think, if there is anything not libertarian, it is that. It’s the worst of the worse violation of individual freedom.

I don’t like using force or fraud. Forcing me to kill someone else will be a ground for I don’t know, personal terrorism? He he he….

I am saying they have a case if people can vote. People that can vote gets something out of their right. I think they should contribute something too. For most people, the only thing they can contribute, is conscription, a light one at least.

Think about it.

Say you have a nation state.

That nation state is like a corporation right. A bunch of people come together and say, let’s defend our self together. This is a very natural arrangement. Group of people collectively defend themselves is far more cost effective than to each his own. If anything, defense is probably one of those things that should be done collectively than individually.

Defense pacts are big like nato. Businesses, however, are often done by initiative of individuals.

Who votes in corporation? Stockholders. Okay. Cool. Who votes in nation states? Well, citizens are sort of like stockholders of nation states co.

You live merrily and then the huns/mongols/russian/chinese/iranian/north korean/western colonialists/your favorite fearsome hordes appear bringing spears/nukes/guns/composite bows and stuffs.

Then another horde of people come to your city, saying they want to be citizens.

Okay, well, you and your buddies, decide that yea we could use more men to defend our cities.

So you basically tell those citizen wannabe a very basic version of civil 101. Our state is “owned” by the citizens. Once you own the state, you can decide how it’s run. It’s a process called voting.

“It’s like buying stocks,” you said.

Instead of contributing capitals, we need men to fight the evil hordes.

Basically we got conscription.

Makes sense right?

Those that decide the fate of an organization are owners of the organization. People become owners of an organization by contributing something. That contribution, in ancient time, is conscription.

Reasonable?

Sound like yes to me.

Imagine if the state cannot conscript anyone. Those hordes of “good guys” get partial ownership of your state for absolutely nothing. We have cradle to graves welfare parasites. We have hordes of refugees causing problems in western europe. All those problems come from people, being able to vote, without contributing anything.

But why conscription? Why not just pay soldiers. Well, paid soldiers are mercenaries. They are like employee. They don’t have “a stake” in the success of the state. They’re fine. But, quite often, it’s hard to guarantee loyalty of tons and tons of outsiders. Having people that have “a stake” is the easiest way to ensure loyalty. There is a reason that most soldiers in most nation states must be citizens.

Of course, in ancient time, only men can vote.

That leads to another important issue.

Decision makers are often stake holders. When humans organize themselves, they tend to make stake holders make decisions. It’s the efficient way.

A business, for example, is governed by the stake holders, not the employee. Imagine if a business is governed by the employee? Then the employee will simply vote to have infinite raise. Imagine if customers can vote? The customers will demand 0 price. In fact, that is what libertarian-ism is all about. Libertarians want all benefits of having government, mainly security and freedom, with 0 tax and no “non consensual obligation” like conscription.

What happens if you demand an ice cream shops that charge 0 for ice creams? You got no such shops. And for that reason, we have a serious under supplies of libertarian countries. There is no fully libertarian country in the world, nor can that be. As long as there is cost in running a good government, those that enjoy the benefit of such governments will have to contribute something.

There are many cheap icecream shops but there is none that distribute for free. The same way there are many countries that’s close enough to libertarian ideal, but none is in that “extreme” ideal. And may be that’s the way it’s supposed to be. It’s what a market “god” would decree, if anything.

In most business, the success and failure of the business will benefit stakeholders. If anything, that’s how we define stake holders besides “ownership”. A business is successful if and only if the stake holders are profited. The exception is when some guy buy huge buy option. He’s a stake holders but he doesn’t own and don’t vote. However, let’s ignore the complexity for a whole.

That’s why stake holders vote. The interests of employees and customers are protected mainly by other check and balance mechanism. That is, those are protected by fierce competition among businesses. The same way, interests of minorities groups and productive individuals, all over the world, are mainly protected by competition among states. Nation states embrace Westphalian sovereignty and effectively compete with each other to get the best capital, best people, smartest scientists, and so on and so on.

Imagine if an ancient nation state lose war? The nation state will have all the males castrated and slaughtered or enslaved. The females? Well, they can just pick the winner. If the states are winning, the males are the one getting more hot chicks and wealth and slaves.

The women? Women, in general, do not get “happier” the richer they are. To be happy means to be “sexy”. Women are sexy when they’re young and pretty. That’s irrelevant of the states’ success. That’s another reason why most states did not allow women to vote.

That’s why in ancient time, only males could vote. And that’s probably the origin of the idea that soldiers are “honorable” bla bla. That’s probably why many feminazis want women to be soldiers too. I think they are very anachronistic. But yea all those being soldiers is “honorable” while being a prostitute is “dishonorable” may comes from those political circumstances.

If anything, as a man, I would very much prefer being prostitute than a soldier. It’s kind of funny to me how some movements that supposedly promote “females’ interests” would prohibit prostitution and work hard so women can become soldiers. I bet they’re ugly. But we’re moving out of topic too much.

Is this a good idea to practice now? I don’t think so. Though I like to see things tried on smaller scale.

Next, I would explain why only land holders should vote. Or I would say, there is a strong case why it may be a good idea. Again, it’s been tried before. And there is a good reason why in ancient time, only males, or only land holders can vote.

I think if we want to start from scratch, and can do something “experimental”, we can consider things like that when setting up a new experimental nation states.

Conscription?

No no…..

I am not promoting conscription. I am promoting common sense behind ancient conscription. I think a new state should, like businesses, have certain things that may slightly violate libertarian principles.

1. A state must have owners (some investors, founders, and protectors would be a good stake holders. Those who do not have power or money can be “conscripted”)
2. A state must have income.
3. People that want to get benefits of living in those states should contribute something (so there will be some tax, perhaps visiting visa)
4. A state should have freedom to do what’s the owners think is necessary to max out the interest of the states (some libertarian things may be illegal, or heavily taxed, like drugs)

Let’s take a look at an almost libertarian state. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerva_Reefs

It almost works.

If only enough people are willing to defend the state it would work. If before starting the state some powerful country like UK, or PRC wants to be protector and got a stake, it would work too.

A closer to libertarian state is almost working in Minerva Reefs.

However, the libertarian there is too “purist” it fails after attack by a weak country called Tonga.

Libertarians should try again. This time, be a bit moderate.

China Can Export “electricity” to US and There is Nothing Trump Can Do to Prevent or Tax It

Really?

You kidding.

What? Build cable to US?

Uhuk uhu

Of course not.

1st step:Convert electricity to bitcoin. Chinese are better than US in this regard. Major bitcoin asic manufacturers, GPU manufacturers are in China.
2nd step: “Export” btc to US. There is absolutely NOTHING US government can do to stop it. That is why bitcoin is awesome. There is NOTHING US government can do.
3rd step: Send dollars to China. Okay there are things US can do to prevent this. But well, you know. The last step is optional. Bitcoin is as good as money. The chinese can buy anything they want with it and pay with bitcoin. So 2nd and 3rd step is really optional.

Alas. The chinks shot themselves in the foot. Chinese government ban bitcoin again and again.

Actually, bitcoin can be used as a weapon on trade war. Any country that is hit by trade war can just get cheap energy, build bitcoin and then tada, live. That would greatly blunt effect of any trade war.

Yes, bitcoin price is unstable. But if they use bitcoin to import stuff right away, it’s not a problem.

Can China Avoid US Tariff?

A chinaman is producing porcelain, paper, and gun powda.

I am making this up here. Just for sample.

Donald Trump is like, 1000% tariff on all porcelain from China.

Mr. Ching Chong then sell porcelain to Harambe in Mexico, that then sell it to Jim Smith in Texas.

Problem solved.

0% Tariff.

If anything, the only thing Donald Trump did is giving money to traders.

A Teacher I Wish I Had

Former middle-school teacher, caught having daily sex with 13 year old student, gets sentenced to 10 years in prison.

For all the 13 years old dreamers out there

I mean, where the fuck all these goddesses are when I were 13.

If I were a judge, I would just tell her to do community service as bdsm stripper for ugh, oh well, legal age males.

For those who think that women should be treated the same way with men. Hello…. Have you checked market price? How much would fucking a girl this hot worth if prostitution were legal?

And that’s the problem with counting on the law, rather than market mechanism, to guide morality. With market, we know the value of a good, namely the price people are willing to pay for it.

With the law, government has to put a blindfold on many big pink elephants.

What about the poor boy?

I bet his hand is broken for having too many high five. I felt sorry for him. He should have written a book. How did you do it?

Best Paying Jobs for Women are All Those that are Illegal

You know the problem with feminism? They insist that women must have equal pay with men in what’s obviously “men’s job”. There are jobs where women are paid more than men. However feminist insist that all those jobs should be illegal.

Here is one of them Wanted, £45-an-hour cleaners – must work naked (and only women may apply)

And how do I know if a job is a men’s job than a woman’s job? I just look at the pay. If men earns more money than women, it’s a man’s job. If women earns more money than men, it’s a woman’s job. If it’s about equal I wouldn’t worry about gender when picking someone to do the job.

If I need a massage, for example, followed with some happy ending finisher, I definitely would hire a beautiful female massage therapists. Would I hire a male one? You probably should ask how much money I should get if I let a male give me a massage.

You see how I am a sexist? I value women more than men for pretty much the same job, giving me massage.

Now what are women’s job?

Housewife (It’s female version of “husband”, except that “husband” usually earns negative salary from his spouse).
stripper
whore
massage therapists
porn star

Does that mean that men shouldn’t be a porn star? No. They’re welcome to try. I mean I would like to try that my self if I have the talent. I wish I have that talent. Being good at Math is nice. But having an eternally hard cock and chiseled body may be even better. God must have put more talent points there.

Should women be engineers? Well, they’re welcome to ugh try… Cute… So cute….

Why most beautiful women should be prostitute

I think most sexy beautiful women should be prostitute. It’s just the most efficient way. We pick occupation with the highest pay. We got the highest pay when we do what’s most valuable for others.

Not all women are sex objects of course. Only the pretty are.

Now, look at a beautiful big tities woman. What should she be? Engineer? Soldiers? Sex objects of course.

This truth is so important and profound in our evolution that it’s imprinted in all men’s DNA and hardwired in most men’s brain. Women are sex object. When we men see beautiful women, what we think and feel the first time is how do I knock her up.

This is not lack of control or sinful thought or whatever religious leaders would want you to believe.

It’s the way it’s supposed to.

If you see a butcher, of course you think he is a meat provider.

The same way if you see a hot woman, what you think is of course she is a candidate to reproduce.

You don’t even have to think. Through years of evolution, men that don’t instinctively feel that way have gone extinct.

But western civilization (and westernized ones) are unique.

No.

Women can be anything BUT sex objects.

She can be soldiers, she can be dish washers, she can be road cleaners, she can be soldiers. But get paid for sex? Whoa….. That’s oppression, demeaning, bla bla bla bla bla

Now look at white guys birth rate. You guys are going extinct. You ignore the most fundamental truth in the world. Women are sex objects. It’s TRUE.

Think of any objects you want. What objects is most suitable for sexual reproduction? Think about it? Your TV? Your cat? Your Dad? What kind of objects will max out numbers of your genetic copy if you have sex with? Women.

Now some religious leaders would say. Sex is great as long as you do it within marriage.

What is the difference between marital sex and prostitution?

If you ignore the religious mambo jumbo like sanctity, sacredness. If others’ opinion like “legitimacy” means little to you. Marital sex has only one positive side.

Paternity determination.

That’s it.

In ancient time, before blood DNA tests, the ONLY way to know who the father is is by institution called marriage. In fact, MOST religions do not prohibit sex outside marriage as long paternity fraud is not an issue.

Ancient jewish religion, for example, allow concubinage and polygamy and sex with slaves. As long as you don’t have sex with someone else’ wife or fiancee you’re good.

Nowadays, paternity determination in marriage is obsolete. We got DNA tests for that. Marriage is totally useless if we don’t give fuck about religions and others’ opinion.

Why Melania stays with Donald?

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Melania-Trump-still-sticking-with-Donald-Trump

So many answer here resolve around the idea that Trump is not an attractive male and that Melania is in it for the money.

Boy, have you looked at the competition?

Most other males are not even billionaires.

Most other males do not have as much common sense and IQ as Donald is.

And most other males are not SMART enough to be businessman let alone president.

Imagine if you are genetically wired to want to produce smart children? Would you pick Trump or some random american?

Sex is not just about pleasure. More beautiful women produce more beautiful daughters. We have desire for beautiful women because it’s important to pick them. Our genes scream to us, pick the pretty, if you can.

Women’s genes also scream, pick the rich and smart. Trump is BOTH.

It’s not just money. Women pick the best genes and Trump is one of the best.

In fact, I would say Bill Gates is even better. However, Bill is a nerd.

Yes Trump talked about groping women. Only in western civilization this is considered “bad”. The truth is it’s men’s nature. Some women, like men that are, well, men.

 

Charlie, a Tolerant Religious Leader

Charlie is a religious leader. People are paying Charlie a lot of money due to religion. Charlie is a very well respected and obeyed religious leader in his country.

“To go to heaven, you need to pay Flying Spaghetti Monster $1k,” says Charlie to the crowd. “You can pay through me. Otherwise, you will be tortured for all eternity in outer darkness. Moreover, your body will be sleeping with the fish. In addition to that, your wife and daughter will be humping the guy that makes that happen. Got it?” Most people in the country obey Charlie due to respect. Charlie tend to keep his words on that one.

Those who disbelieve will be killed. Charlie’s faithful followers and fans do the killing.

“It’s basically do what I said or else. Capisce?” said Charlie in national chat. “Amen,” said everyone except those that are sleeping with the fish latter.”

The people in Charlie’s country has a tradition called rutabaga. All sex outside rutabaga is illegal.

“Sex outside rutabaga is unholy. So it’s illegal. I decide what the rutabaga rules are and who can rutabaga who,” said Charlie. “You should only rutabaga those who haven’t been able to attract any sex partner yet (Monogamy – Wikipedia),”

Charlie added. “You shall only rutabaga those with the same letter of first name as yours. So Andrew can rutabaga Anne and Bob can rutabaga Bonita,” Charlie makes rules on the fly.

“The only permitted sexual position is doggy style, the rest is abomination. Anyone wanting to unlock other position need special sacraments that’ll cost $2k,” Charlie keeps talking and thickening his pocket. “What? I am a religious leader. Of course I regulate sex. It’s the going industry standard. It’s the tao of all religious leaders. I am effectively the pimp of all hoes. No body fuck no body without my explicit permission called rutabaga or marriage or whatever. Otherwise it’s sin punishable by up to 5 years of hard labor or sexual slavery.”

Books that may encourage skepticism and atheism like “From Faith to Doubt” is prohibited.

“Early followers of Flying Spaghetti Monster may not be monotheistic,” explains George. “In fact, early scriptures of Flying Spaghetti Monster’s worshipper suggest that this whole religion wasn’t mean to be taken seriously at all.” George explains.

Soon, Donny is sleeping with the fish. His wife and daughter become porn stars on national TV servicing all inmates in prison. “Mom, this is very embarrassing,” complains Hanna, Donny’s daughter. “Well, that’s what happen when dad read prohibited stuff,” explains Irene, Donny’s widow.

One day a secular liberal philosopher talks to Charlie. “You said there is no compulsion in religion. So people should be free to choose their religion,” says the philosopher.

“Mmmm… Okay,” says Charlie.

“Well, the only people that choose their religions are apostates and heretics. So they should have right to be apostates and heretics too. Otherwise, what’s the point?” says the philosopher.

“MMMM…. Makes perfect sense,” says Charlie.

So Charlie then creates a new religious decree. “From now on, you are free to be apostates,” says Charlie.

Some people then become apostates. Those people do not pay Charlie anymore. Charlie lost income. “Ah well, I am a tolerant religious leader. It’s the right thing,” says Charlie.

Turns out killing apostates are Charlie’s religions main selling point. I mean, nowadays, people sort of want some proof and Charlie doesn’t have any. Hence, more people become apostates. Killing apostates tend to make more people behave.

“Well, sucks for them then. Too bad they all going to hell even though nobody is killing them anymore,” says Charlie.

Also some competitors start mimicking Charlie’s success strategy.

“Worship Flying Spaghetti Monster Jr instead. He just asks for $500,” says Freddy.

“Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t have children. Worship invisible pink unicorn instead. Currently still free till further evolution in the religion,” says George.

Competition gets tougher and tougher. All those new heretical sects offer better deals at pretty much the same proof with Charlie, none. Charlie then performs a counter strike.

“Flying Spaghetti Monster demands $1k, however, paying anything is better than nothing,” says Charlie.

“Worship Jehovah Jr. instead. He’s the most popular god ever,” says Hendry, a Christian missionary. “You can make up religious doctrines on the fly to justify war or anything you wish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque). You can embrace your own culture and call it biblical no matter what your culture is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome). You can talk gibberish and call it divine communication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia). You can claim to be prophets and very few would give fuck (Benny Hinn – A False Prophet). In time of extreme poverty, you can use Jesus names to justify looting jews, at least till the jews got power. When they do, you can just be their ally and call that biblical too. You can claim you can miraculously cure disease, make tons of money, and get away with fraud even though those you claim you cure die (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing),” Hendry explains the superiority of his religion compared to all others.

“This Christianity used to be a very tough competitor. Now I am tolerant and no longer prosecute them,” sigh Charlie.

As time goes by, Charlie’s profit margins get less and less. Soon, Charlie lost all his income.

But he doesn’t worry. “I can still do programming,” says Charlie to himself. So Charlie becomes a programmer.

“Programmer is one of those influential ancient honest job,” explains Ivan, a historian. Ivan has been trying to reenact various honest jobs responsible for humans’ golden age on 21st century.

After lifelong years of studying various programming languages and programming patterns, Charlie can finally code.

“Speak the truth, always, even when making jokes or writing e-book. Never create fictions. Safeguard the global constants and this scripture. Do no anti pattern,” Ivan screams while putting his two handed keyboard on the shoulder of kneeling Charlie.

Charlie makes some money. Not as much as it used to be. His harem is empty because all his wives left to richer men. “Ah, but I am a tolerant guy,” says Charlie.

Charlie talent for convincing people is not that useful anymore in programming. “So what? It’s the right thing,” says Charlie.

Then, the liberals demand income taxes.

“What the hell. Oh tax is robbery. Waaaa… I lost a lot of money here,” says Charlie. “People used to pay me tax. Now I am paying tax. That sucks. Well, I suppose it’s okay. I’ll be a good citizen and pay tax.”

One day Charlie is walking on the street. A robber comes. “Give me all the money in your wallet. However, to save both of our time, what about if you tell me the amount of cash in your wallet first so I can decide whether it’s worth robbing you or not. I mean we got limited resources and there are too many potential robbery victims walking these roads and around other roads we have no control too you know.”

“Make sense,” says Charlie. The problem is Charlie has just gotten his cash pay. He got $50k on his wallet. That’s his salary for the whole year.

“I wonder what I should do?” asks Charlie, “Lying means fraud. I don’t do fraud.”

“Ah to hell with this. This guy is an asshole. I don’t owe him anything. He doesn’t respect my right. I shouldn’t respect his right either. Why should I care? I am just going to lie,” says Charlie to himself.

“I got no money,” says Charlie.

“Oh ya, let me check that,” says the robber.

“Robbery payers are not being cooperative. We have sufficient reasons to believe a case of under reported seize able assets. We will perform a thorough robbery audit,” say the robbers’ friends.

“Probable causes accepted. Permissions to audit granted,” says the robbers’ supreme adjudicators.

“All I got in my pocket are guns,” adds Charlie.

“Hmmm… we are busy. I guess we’ll just meet next time,” say the robbers.

“I also have, machine guns, shotguns, torture devices, and other anti-robbery measures,” Charlie further elaborates.

“Oh shit. You could have just nailed us. You are such a nice guy. Here is $10k for being nice,” say the robbers.

“Wow. Lying does work,” says Charlie, “Well, anything worth doing is worth overdoing. After all, the libtards are taxing me. They too are not my friends. I owe nothing to them. I’ll just do whatever it takes to get whatever I want. Just like everyone else.”

“Listen people. Flying Spaghetti Monster has told once that apostates are assholes. All of you must repent or face eternal torture along with your whole clans,” Charlie says.

Most people do not believe. However, a few do. Those few kill those who disbelieve. Eventually everyone believes out of fear. Charlie systems work again due to superior leadership.

Some wants to fight back, but they are afraid, just like the robbers.

“Resistance is futile. Flying Spaghetti Monster is almighty and he is on my side,” says Charlie.

Those who dare to fight Charlie becomes less and less and Charlie’s supporter can kill them more easily.

Then everybody repents and pays money to Charlie again. Charlie harem is full again. Charlie then lives happily ever after.