Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
Meritocracy doesn’t have to be on an individual base. Allowing groups some autonomy combined with NAP among groups can improve NAP among individuals within many groups. Meritocracy between groups will lead to meritocracy within groups and between individuals. Is it?
We allow kids to be rich just because their parents are rich. Here, families are groups that took care of each other. We shouldn’t care too much if some parents spank their child. We start interfering when parents do something more extreme like amputating their children’s arm to make better beggars.
Shareholders get rich because their companies get up or down collectively. Inside, the corporations will reward more productive employees because otherwise, the corporations will make less profit.
The United States is richer because of they, collectively as a nation, wiser.
The idea is to divide individuals into families or nations or citizens or villages or group and arrange those groups don’t excessively harm other groups while allowing those groups to have more autonomy inward.
A city can legalize gambling or stealing or drugs. Unwise decisions will hurt residents in the city so the residents will pick what’s wise.
The only thing we need to concern is if the cities produce too many poor people it can export to other cities. That’s what I mean.
Is this good for libertarianism?
It depends. On principles, there are things libertarians may not like. For example, libertarians are usually individualists. Also, why should a smart productive individual in Venezuela suffer because of their evil state while a lazy Americans prosper?
However, competition among nations motivates most countries to be more libertarian. It is precisely because Americans prosper and Venezuelan are poor that citizens of every other country want to be more like Americans. Americans, after all, are more libertarians than Venezuelans.
Also, it’s not that bad. The smart and productive in Venezuela can go somewhere else. They can then pull out their families.
NAP among nations is more practical than NAP between individuals. Individuals are so weak compared to the states expecting governments not to tax us is difficult.
However, nations are reasonably powerful compared to the world’s government. We don’t even have the world’s government. So NAP among nations is quite good. NAP among individuals is then achieved by smart people moving to libertarian countries.
It’s simply more practical to pursue NAP among nations, cities, or provinces first than NAP among individuals right away.
It’ll help resolve issues like abortion. Again the mom chooses whether they abort their babies or not. We can consider families as a group. Then abortion is like in group harm that we shouldn’t care.
Or what about the legalization of prostitution and drugs? Instead of insisting that it should be legal everywhere, we realize that each state/provinces/cities should have the autonomy to decides that.
Let each city decide. Denver, Colorado decides to legalizes mushroom. I am sure their citizens will prosper due to those decisions. Then other cities will follow. So, libertarian goals, namely legalization of drugs, happen due to a bit of statism, namely the idea that cities can decide what’s legal or not legal.
What happens if cities criminalize Kentucky fried chicken? Don’t worry. The citizens as a group will suffer, and individuals can go out. The cities will change their decisions, and those decisions are not popular.
This doesn’t look like straight forward libertarians. However, we can’t force every group to be libertarians within their group. We just need to ensure that every group practices NAP between the groups. Then see the rules that show up between the groups. I think it’ll be quite close to libertarians.
The only important right we need is to ensure that each can detach itself from its group. In other words, we don’t even need the right to immigrate. Every nation can refuse any person they wish. We just need to the right to emigrate. As long as nations cannot prevent their valuable citizens from getting out, they have to compete.
Every company can refuse any employee but they cannot prevent employees from living right.
So the way it works, it’s already close to the way our current world works.
Under normal democracies, NAP among groups is violated by 2 problems. Extreme libertarianism may make the world less libertarians on these issues.
Traveling stupid voters problems and breeding voters problems
In traveling stupid voters problems, a city can make bad policies produces poverty in societies and travel to other cities.
People in middle east want theocracy and then go to Europe and then demanding syariah. Now, this is one of the things where “pure libertarianism” with its open border policy may lead to less libertarianism overall.
Now, people in the middle east is not in the same country like Europe. So they cannot immigrate easily. Imagine if they are in the same country?
Imagine if those people are not in middle east but within your country. We already have American Taliban criminalizing abortion in Georgia.
Another is breeding stupid voters’ problem. Here, one family can gain control of a nation by breeding more children. That hurts the interests of other families. Democracy allows this without restrictions.
Some welfare parasites can keep breeding more cradle to grave welfare parasites that just vote for more statism.
Many people that support meritocracy think it’s unfair that a fetus of poor couples get aborted while a fetus of a rich couple get the best vitamins and healthcare and latter will have better educations and opportunities.
It’s not an individual base meritocracy. It’s not even clear under libertarianism if abortion is okay or not. The fetus may count as individuals. However, if we look at it through the lense of NAP among families it’s very clear. We don’t interfere on fetus’ life because it’s their families’ problem.
Abortion right leads to some libertarian goals like less tax and less welfare. On the other hand, excessive libertarianism, like counting the fetus as an individuals, will lead to less libertarianism in other area. Now tax payers will end up paying for those unwanted children.
The children of someone productive will have more chances in life due to the merit of their family, not their individual merit. After all, the children are just born. They have no merit yet.
Again, family/gene-based meritocracy would fix this. Each child born out of welfare parasite does not have the same right with a child born out of positively contributing citizens. The child born out of richer couples will have more toys, better IQs, and better education.
There will be conflicts among societies right, family’s right, and individuals’ right. A society may prohibit abortion, the mom may do it, and the fetus may disagree.
But most of those conflicts can be resolved peacefully. The mom can move to another society that allows abortion, for example.
In other words, if we don’t even know whether something is good or bad or black and white. If it’s not clear something is good or bad or whether the individuals decide, we should err on what the group decides.
McDonald corporation is built on the principle of the franchise. McDonald has many franchises.
However, not all of McDonald’s store are franchises. McDonald directly owns some. Those few stores are less efficient than franchises. However, McDonald uses that to build a brand as models and stuff.
Those few sprinkled real shops are good. McDonald can experiment and see if things work out and get info directly. The number is small compared to the standard franchises. Even if the experiment “fails” the benefit of experience will still benefit McDonald as a whole.
In my country, we used to have only government gas station. The gas stations were corrupt. If we buy 20 L gas, we got 15L. Typical of governments’ inefficiency.
Then we got private gas stations. The private gas stations were better. We got people washing our windshield and better customer service. No corruption.
Something even better happen too. When having to compete with private gas stations, the government gas stations get better too. Now I get the same quality of service either way I go. Competition, not private or public or franchise or direct command economy or excessive principle of the market mechanism, does the trick.
If we have private only gas stations or public only gas stations, the result may be worse. Private parties often have bizarre, misleading scammy promotions. Have both and make them compete and we got good results.
What about democracy? The US is a democracy. China is not. Yes the US gets prosperous. China didn’t catch up.
However, do you think the Chinese are stupid? Do you think they couldn’t see that the US is much more prosperous than them?
What happens is, the Chinese slowly copy what’s working in the US. What’s working is not a democracy, but capitalism. Now the Chinese get prosperous too.
China could not get 10% year after year economic growth if it were a democracy. Democracy has its flaws. The people are stupid. They often demand various inefficient market distortion that slows down the economy.
In the US, as capitalism bring prosperity, the voters demand higher minimum wage. In China, as capitalism brings success, the money goes to capitalists. So capitalists move jobs to China.
The US voters, seeing that, also realize that too much socialism is bad. Donald Trump then lower corporate taxes.
Currently, all cities are public properties. Cities are governed by governments based on principles. I do not think it’s necessary.
Like Indonesian’s gas stations, most of the majors do not govern their cities efficiently. Potholes are not filled. Money is gone to jail harmless drug users and dealers instead of real criminals.
What we need is to try things differently. Let most cities be normal cities like usual the way it used to be. Let some cities be privately owned, say by the original voters of those cities. Let some cities behave like private malls. The towns can have owners and shares. The shares pay a dividend and can be bought and sold.
See how things go. Experiments, make them compete, see result.
Currently, there isn’t any libertarian country in the world.
With a bit of modification, libertarianism is good to go actually. We do have holes that if not fixed will be fatal.
However, it can be fixed and should be fixed. Once it’s fixed, we will see libertarianism in all four corners of the world. Okay, I mean in enough places at least.
Still counting on morality
Capitalism, Libertarianism, and Minarchism are great. Why is it great? Because it doesn’t rely on morality. It counts mainly on greed.
Under capitalism, libertarianism, and minarchism, only two things are “wrong.” Force, fraud, and probably, not following contracts. That’s good enough most of the time.
The more we count on greed and selfishness the more robust a system is. Humans, after all, greedy and selfish.
Morality makes us blame others instead of coming up with a proper solution. Morality prevents us from seeing shades of grey. One thing is much worse than the other. In the eye of a moral person, they’re both wrong. A wise people would calmly pick a less bad alternative.
So what’s the problem? The problem is capitalism still count on morality. As long as we think something is “wrong” we still blame that thing instead of fixing the problem.
Let’s take a sample. Why aren’t we afraid of Russia Nukes? That’s because it’s not toward Russia’s best interests to nuke us. If they nuke us, we’re all dead, including Russians.
We do not count on Russians’ morality to be saved from their nukes. We count on a system where it’s not toward anyone’s best interest to hurt others.
Many libertarians think that welfare is “wrong.” Here is the problem with saying welfare is wrong. It’s there. Right or wrong, it’s there. So what’s the solution?
Most libertarians don’t have any solutions to reduce welfare. It’s “out of the libertarian box.” Libertarians’ “solution” is to say it’s wrong and that’s it.
A right ideology does not depend on morality at all. Everyone selfishly tries to maximize his interests and productivity as a whole is maximized.
That self-interest includes forcing or defrauding others. Basically, a good ideology would ensure that it’s not toward the best interest of people to commit force or fraud.
For example, Venezuelan are poor. Do you pay welfare to Venezuelan? No right. So not simply because someone is poor means we’re fucked and have to pay tax to support welfare checks. Welfare programs can be “defeated.”
The key is to be more powerful than the welfare parasites. Often, a way to do it is by giving less harmful people some less dangerous form of welfare.
Hate Governments too much
How do we prevent force or fraud?
Many ways. We build fences around our houses so burglars can’t come in. Freedom of speech means fraudulent companies are exposed.
However, for 40% of the time, at least currently, governments are the main solution to prevent forces or fraud.
Governments have cops and court. Most courts are not too bad or too unjust.
But governments cause a big problem. Now the governments themselves are the source of force or fraud.
So what’s the solution?
A bigger government on top of those governments? You know what it may work. However, it seems to be “pushing” the problem upward.
What’s on top of those bigger governments? Another even bigger governments?
And who is really on top of those even bigger governments?
Most people say there is God. Some say some moral principles.
Neither are effective.
It’s tried. Chinese ancient societies are like that. On top of feudal lords, there is an emperor. Then? The emperor is pretty much a douche and the Chinese change dynasty every 200-400 years.
So who should be on top of the top of all those governments? What about the market?
World peace means governments are mere players. Governments compete with each other like they are corporations.
World peace and competition among governments will force governments to be small.
So not being grateful and realizing this is a weakness in libertarianism.
Too much dichotomy
Libertarians divide organizations based on private vs public, between right vs wrong, between consensual vs nonconsensual.
Under libertarianism, “private parties” can do anything except force or fraud. The public entities like governments can only be a “referee”.
It’s not bad.
However, many things are grey.
For example, are obfuscating contract fraud? https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/sim-lim-scams-student-reduced-tears-after-being-charged-1k-iphone-warranty
Do customers have the right to get correct and non misleading info?
Does not telling such to customers count as fraud? Imagine putting poison in coffee and not telling customers about it. Does that mean the customer drink the coffee consensually?
Much huge organization, like VOC and EIC, are private parties that are essentially government.
Many local governments are effectively private parties. Small countries are like private parties. Anyone that doesn’t like leaving there can easily go outside.
Here, simply dividing the organization into private vs public can make things that are different look the same.
For example, if you can choose between states raising tax or federal government raising the tax, which one will you choose? Under standard libertarianism, both are governments, both shouldn’t.
However, of course, states raising the tax is almost harmless. You can just move to another state. Irwin Schiff goes to jail opposing Federal Income tax, not state taxes.
I think anyone that wants to promote libertarianism or any ideology should see politic the way it indeed is — not blinded by their sense of right or wrong too much.
Not practiced enough
Where is a libertarian country? None. Not yet.
Democracy counts on the greed and interest of voters. That’s why democracy has greedy welfare parasites that demand bigger and bigger welfare. Greedy politicians also encourage them to breed, so they vote for bigger governments.
Libertarians are parties of principles.
Just like selfish interests trump any principles, democracy, surprisingly outperform libertarians in this area.
It’s kind of ironic.
Capitalism, a system that counts on self-interests in most area of life, counts on principles when it comes to government.
We should count on self-interests in politic as much as in business.
Instead of saying that it’s “wrong” that voters do not vote for libertarianism, we should come up with ways so that something more libertarians are more profitable for voters too.
Too hostile to power holders. Too little benefit for the mass
United States help South Vietnam in war. The United States, being capitalist, protect landowners right over land. The result? Many poor farmers side with the communist and the United States lost the war.
Libertarians create a country in Minerva. Then Tonga attacks. And that country is gone.
Israel was attacked by so many Arab states. Fortunately, they’re not libertarian. That’s how they survived.
If Israel were libertarians, they would have been destroyed.
Either through bullets or ballots, the large number of people can have their interests.
To have a stable state, we need more than just principles of NAP. We need muscle. The strong get what they want. The weak suffer what they must. The biggest crime is not force or fraud. The biggest crime in politic is weak or stupid.
If I were libertarians, I would pay soldiers or ask for protection from powerful states. In a democracy, rather than saying all taxation is theft or all welfare is theft, I would promote some moderate position that gets me to win elections.
For example, giving more welfare to those with fewer kids or ensuring that people living on welfare agree to be sterilized temporarily, will significantly reduce poverty. I’d go that direction rather than saying all taxes are stealing.
Not proven enough
Libertarianism is too “theoretical”. Where is a libertarian country? I see democratic nations, I see communist countries, I see Islamic countries. Where is a libertarian country?
Good ideologies are practiced. Democracy is worse than libertarianism. However, it is at least practiced. Any ideologies can work in “theory”. We should measure how good ideology is based on whether it’s working or not.
As of now, I wouldn’t stray far from democracy. I like libertarianism more. However, I want something that’s tried and working. We can change things slowly toward more libertarianism, and that’s it.
Libertarians may think that their ideology is good if only people believe that. That’s what every other proponent of other ideologies say.
Religious ideologies are practiced because even though it doesn’t work, they are at least convincing.
Even if libertarians are right, I would worry about using something too unproven. Why drastic changes? Why not work on what’s available and be grateful for what’s already working.
So what’s the solution?
Simple. Look at things that make the world libertarians and remind people of such.
If people want to raise a tax, remind them that our countries compete. That’ll reduce tax.
If people want bigger welfare, remind them that the more money given to children of welfare parasites, the less money go to each welfare recipient. Consider universal basic income. That one doesn’t encourage people to be poor or breed.
If people want to ban drugs, remind them that they get more citizen dividend if drugs are taxed instead of prohibited. Yes, that means some taxes and hence, not perfect. But it’s better than prohibition. Soon, competition among countries will make the most safe drugs legal everywhere.
In general, appeal to voters interests. Don’t appeal to morality. Tell voters that it’s toward their best interests to be more libertarians.
Compromise principles if necessary.
Democracy have 3 main problems
- Lack of real choices. Say you like Pizza and your friend like Burger. Would you have to convince your friends that Pizza is good? No. You go to Pizza Hut and your friend go to Burger King. Say Burger King pick bad CEO. Say Pizza Hut pick good CEO. You can just sell your Burger King stocks and Buy Pizza Hut stocks. The only people that can make you rich or poor is you. Not so under democracy. You keep arguing how good capitalism is and no body listen. LSD is pretty much illegal in all countries. Median vote theorem means you have 2 similar choices in election. Freedom of movement between states/provinces means that all states and provinces roughly have the same demographic. Then median vote theorem works again in those provinces and you got pretty similar rules no matter where you go.
- No collective accountability for bad votes. Say Venezuelan vote stupidly. Their country is poor. They can’t easily go somewhere else. However, say, for example, people in Wisconsin is as stupid as people in Venezuela. Once their state went bankcrupt they can just go to other states. I call this traveling stupid voters problem. Stupid voters can vote for bad laws and move to better governed states. Some countries in middle east, for example, literally destroy their country. Then they emigrate to Europe. Then what do they want? You guess it. Shariah. In corporations, if you vote for wrong CEO, you lost money. You can bail out by selling the stocks before it drops though.
- Stupid breeding voters. Many democracy provide welfare for people producing 40 children. Each of those children will vote for more welfare and on and on. In corporations, you get more shares by buying or contributing. Not so in democracy. Too much reward without contribution.
I think those are the 3 main problems of Democracy.
This system should work without the need for morality or compassion or any principle. It’ll work even if everyone is greedy and selfish. It counts on it. So it’s a bit like bitcoin. No need to trust the morality of anyone.
In other words, it works on humans. We’re a greedy selfish species after all.
Libertarians think you have a right on your body and your property.
To avoid political instability caused by extreme poverty, and to provide you with the incentive to support the system, you also have a right to a share of a nation/state/city. We’d rather have you support the system then becoming a terrorist just because you have nothing to eat.
In practice, if you’re wise and vote wisely, you can get far more than food. Just don’t vote like Venezuelan. Instead, make your state/country very safe and comfortable for taxpayers and investors. Do that, and you’ll get plenty of citizen dividend even without work/job.
You are a co-owner of a nation/state/cities, a business run to make a profit. Act like one.
In general, a nation should be owned and benefit a large number of people/owners to be stable and powerful. That’s why democracy works.
A nation owned and controlled by a few, like monarchy, will often be too unstable. Just look at French revolution.
It’s the same reason why I only want to invest money if there are 2-3 other investors. Investing alone is asking to be scammed.
A nation is more of a defense pact than a corporation. There is strength in number.
A bit of collectivism is not only okay but desired. Otherwise, we will have another Minerva Reef, another lost like in South Vietnam, and another communist victory like in China.
You have a right to vote in ways that maximize your share return of investment, sell and buy more share at market price.
There will be some restriction to ensure that the state remains democratic. For example, those who stay must have a minimum number of shares (most countries allow their citizens to stay in the country). Or perhaps only 10% of the shares are tradeable and the rest must be owned by the population.
What’s important is the share have valuation so we know that the state is being run well. That is the only main difference between this and normal democracy. The share have valuation. Extra info.
If you are productive and beneficial, you should also have a right for diverse choices of states to go too that may not necessarily the same state you own a share with.
Your primary interest in owning your country is to see a good return on your share. The other benefits are too complicated. You can get all your other interests by moving to states/provinces/countries you like.
If you think your state does not provide values for the taxpayers and the price will go down, but everyone else disagrees with you, you’re welcome to exchange your share with a share of another province/state/country.
You will pay or receive price differences. You can buy back and make a profit if you’re right. You will lose money if you’re wrong. If you like your state no matter what, then never exchange it. Just HODL like bitcoin and vote. Up to you.
If you don’t like the way your state is governed as a resident, you’re welcome to move to another state. You can have a share of one state and live in another. It’s up to you.
Your right to break the victimless crime law in a state is as valid as your right to bring popcorn to cinema that prohibits it. Hell. If you like your popcorn so much, just pick a cinema that allows it.
Cinemas need money from the higher popcorn price to keep price ticket low for other consumers. That’s a reasonably legitimate need.
You can watch a better movie with a lower ticket price because of it. For the same reason, it is very understandable for some state to want to tax luxuries, alcohol, and vices a lot.
So it’s up to the state to decide what is a crime. However, you should have a diverse choice of states to choose where to live.
However, you’re welcome to try to hide the popcorn under your clothes. You just have to deal with the consequences if caught. Cinemas shouldn’t prohibit hard to enforce rules anyway and so are states.
The same way, states that tax income instead of land will karmically see all profit shifted away to tax haven. That is a lousy business model.
Jails and conflicts are expensive. Unenforceable crimes with a high penalty will be far more problematic than easily enforced offense with a low sentence. We want you to keep doing business with us.
Say you want to try LSD. Are there plenty of LSD users that are also productive taxpayers?
If there are plenty, like Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, there will be plenty of states that see that it’s more profitable to tax LSD than prohibiting it. You can move to one of those states and enjoy your freedom.
There is no need to insist that LSD should be legal in the whole country or the entire globe because it’s human’s right. Why would you? What’s the point? You won’t be living in all countries at once at the same time. Just go to where you like.
However, if you think that all taxation is theft, you will find that no state can run under that philosophy. Perhaps it’s time you realize that your idea is too extreme, that it’s not practical, and that you don’t need it to go that far anyway. You’re welcome to move to states/country/provinces/cities that provide all the security and freedom you like with the least tax to pay.
The states/countries/provinces/cities are now competing to have taxpayers to move. They won’t tax too high.
Let the market, that has wonderfully decided what’s best for us within states, also govern those states to be fair and reasonable.
US used to be a libertarian country.
Libertarianism is great. However, it has a few flaws.
It doesn’t address market failure. Many freedoms are arguably not force or fraud but hurt the economy.
Those are things like voting for a socialist party, breeding while poor, deceptive marketing.
Libertarianism also doesn’t address great wealth inequality. If wealth is too unequal, the people tend to rebel or vote for a different party.
Libertarianism and capitalism, however, is NOT the cause of wealth inequality. Just look at emperors living in a palace with harem while many are merely slaves. Wealth and power inequality happen long before capitalism. Someone is always smarter and more realistic. Those people will get richer on any system.
If anything, libertarianism, and capitalism reduce wealth inequality because it treats people equal under the law.
Quite often, pure libertarianism is it gives too little scrap to the poor voters. So most rulers and voters do not vote libertarian party. I think libertarians should balance the “socialism” and “freedom” and try to maximize “freedom” with minimum “socialism”. Insisting on 0 socialism will not win the election.
So, I like libertarianism. However, I do not advocate full libertarianism. I think anything toward more libertarianism is great. Just don’t too much.
However, there is a natural, even positive reason why US went socialist.
Imagine if you’re a store. You sell an awesome ideology. What happens? In the beginning, you sell it for free.
Then you will think why I should sell this stuff at a cheap price? I should charge money. Then you start making a lot of money. It’s just common sense. You deserve it.
Then other shops start selling your widget. Now your price goes down. It’s a never-ending cycle under capitalism.
Nations are like shops. Rulers are like owners. Taxpayers are like consumers.
US start being libertarian. Libertarianism is great. So US get prosperous.
Then the voters think. Why should we be libertarians? Why don’t we charge the rich and give it to the poor? Think about it. Where would the rich go? To communist China? To another shithole in Mexico?
So the voters demand socialism. It’s just like a store raising the price.
It sucks or good depending on your point of view.
When voters see that a little, rather than too much socialism also benefit the voters, what do other countries too?
Other countries like China start being capitalistic too.
Now US government can’t be too socialist anymore. Raise the minimum wage and jobs move to China. Raise tax and people incorporate in Seychelles.
US government cannot just invade another country that offers better security with lower tax. We have a world system called the Westphalian sovereign. Each country is free to govern as they please. Also, we have nukes. So no country can easily attack another country. US attack Syria and China and Rusia is helping Assad.
So world peace will also create another layer of capitalism. As countries are at peace, they cannot be too socialist. Capitals, talents, and businesses will just flee to another country.
So I think this is what’s happening in the whole world. The whole world is a big capitalistic system where each country is a player. Countries compete with one another peacefully. This outer capitalism between countries is what makes all government better in every country.
A country that governs themselves better will have more socialism for their voters. It’s an irony, isn’t it.
Capitalism produces socialism just like good product produces profit for owners.
Capitalism is NOT an enemy of socialism. How do you think those welfare parasites can get their welfare check if not from the prosperity that comes from Capitalism.
And Socialism is NOT necessarily an enemy of capitalism. As voters get more benefit out of capitalism, more countries become capitalist.
However, no country can be too socialist because then productive elements will move to another country.
I think if we explain to all sides about this dynamic they will come with better ways to arrange their country.
There will be inevitable balance. That’s all I am saying.
I think democracy should be combined with capitalism for a better result.
The population has a diverse need. Hence, they have plenty of conflict of interests.
For example. Imagine we are all consumers of a bakery.
Say the bakery is owned by the state and the customers can vote.
Some want the bakery to produce more burgers, and some want to provide more pizza. Some wish to subsidize burger. Some want to support pizza.
Neither will truly be happy under democracy. Often the deals falls out and we have civil war. Just look at Sunni vs Shia kind of thing in middle east.
Often we settle for banal/neutral solutions like libertarianism, secularism, and liberalism. Those are fine. Neutral solutions allow different people to get along and most nations should be that way.
Should all nation be that way? Those who just want to stick with their own kind have no where to go. That is why racist and religious fundamentalist commit terrorism. They have nowhere to go under normal democracy.
Because of this conflict of interests, most narrative in a democracy are lies. Each of us provides narratives that serve our interests instead of what’s true.
Each of us “sells” our preferred solution as if it’s what’s good for everyone. For example, secularism is good for me. It may not be good for my Muslim buddy.
However, I would say secularism is awesome to persuade as many voters as possible to vote secularism. Some Muslim fundamentalists then commit terrorism.
So what’s the solution? Imagine multiple competing pizzas, burger, and bakeries companies. Imagine if each people can buy and sell shares of those companies and customers can buy pizza and burger from those competing companies.
Here, many things that are hard to measure, such as how delicious this pizza is, can be measured effectively. How many people want to buy the pizza and how cost-effective the pizza is already taken into account. We have something called share valuation to see that.
This is how capitalism works.
That is why I think democracy should be combined with capitalism.
For a start let’s give some dividend to all citizens. Those dividends should replace welfare. Universal basic income or citizen dividends will be implemented in many places.
I think we should call welfare program what it really is. It’s really dividend. Those welfare parasites got welfare not because we are compassionate. Those welfare parasites got welfare because they can vote and we want them to vote “our way”. Welfare is our way to buy their vote.
But let’s simplify welfare program, job creation, and corporate welfare into simple citizen dividend.
Then, turn voters into “owners”. So each guy owns a state/province. Each guy have one and only one share and each share has valuation.
Then there should be a market where people can exchange the ownership of one state with ownership of the other state and there should be some market value on those exchanges.
For example, say someone wants to exchange Chicago with California ownership. If California is more valuable than Chicago then he has to pay money while the reverse gets money. The same way if I want to exchange ownership of Jakarta with a share of Irian.
Each share have valuation and people that want to change have to pay or get the price different.
If California is governed well, taxpayers will move there, and the state will be more valuable. The guy that can predict which states will be governed better will be rich. So everyone will have the incentive to be correct.
Each voter does not have to care what the actual population want. They need only to care about the valuation of their share and pick the one that’s “about to go up”.
Taxpayers then vote with their foot and move to states that they like.
I think this will fix democracy a lot.
Hell. Most share holders don’t even bother voting and yet most blue chip companies are doing fine.
In other words, rather than having our will represented in an election in 4-5 years election, let’s see how our will are represented constantly in the market of state/province ownership.
When you disagree with what your governor/major do, but everyone else agrees, you just exchange your share of your city/province with the share of another city or province. You can repurchase it once your prediction comes true.
States/provinces that can attract the most taxpayers and the highest paying ones will make more money, give more dividend, and have a higher valuation.
Capitalism is a great system.
Capitalism is the most reliable way a large number of people, that don’t know each other, not a family to one another, and possibly hate one another, to nevertheless cooperate well with one another and benefit one another with little control or regulation from a centralized authority.
Capitalism is not the only system to do so. Typical kingdom, nations, ideologies, or corporations also have ways to “unite” people.
However, most the other ways are fragile because of the need for centralized authority.
Take a look at kingdoms, for example. Typical countries are more prosperous than total anarchy. However, kingdoms need a centralized authority to govern. That centralized authority, namely the king, simply live in opulent palace collecting harem.
Soon, the other guys try to be emperors, and we will have another dynasty cycle.
Some system works without a centralized authority, like anarchism. However, anarchy often leads to looting and war. Anarchy, not capitalism, is, of course, the most natural system we have.
Some system also unites people without centralized authority. Religions and ideologies also unite people. How can you have ISIS in Syria direct terrorism in your country? Well. They have the same faith.
How can you have racist supremacist cheering massacres in mosques? They have the same ideology.
However, those religions and ideologies do not lead to prosperity as much as capitalism.
Corporations do not practice pure capitalism insight. Corporations are capitalistic outside. That is, corporations compete with one another, to get paying customers.
However, inside, corporations practice centralized economy. Shareholders pick CEO and that CEO pretty much directly or indirectly determine everything. The CEO determines your salary, what to do and stuff.
If you go to Cinemas, you do not bid for your movie to be shown. You do not vote for movies to be shown like in democracy. Cinemas have owners or rulers. Internally, Cinemas are not capitalistic.
Cinemas are just capitalistic outwardly. The cinemas compete with other cinemas.
So that’s pretty much what I mean by capitalism.
Capitalism is a system where a bunch of people competes peacefully with minimum regulations from a centralized authority. Those people organize themselves into organizations. Those groups then peacefully compete to acquire resources and customers. The organization has owners/effective owners/rulers, and beneficiaries.
One most significant benefit of capitalism is that it works almost automatically. If we need a centralized authority to make it work, then that centralized authority can abuse its power, and things start failing.
Capitalism works with very few and simple rules. The rules are only two. Do not force and do not defraud. Also, capitalism needs a clear consensus on ownership. Somebody needs to protect those property right.
That somebody is usually a centralized authority like government, a decentralized authority like bitcoin, or semi-centralized authorities, like competing online market places.
What do I mean by semi-centralized authorities? Semi centralized authorities are things like PayPal, or online eBay. They are centralized. However, they have to compete and customers can easily choose which centralized authorities make the most sense.
In a sense, eBay is centralized. They have CEO and stuffs. In a sense, eBay is not centralized because it has to compete with Amazon and other online market place. That’s what I mean by semi-centralized authorities.
However, often it’s difficult, to get things done without a centralized authority or semi-centralized authorities.
Without government, for example, who would prevent us from just killing each other and loot each other?
Sometimes, centralized authorities are doing well. If I go to an online market place like eBay, I know that I cannot defraud other customers.
If I defraud other customers, eBay will kick me out. Here, eBay, a centralized authority, does its job well of maintaining justice. If eBay doesn’t do its job well, I will go to Amazon or Alipay.
Here, a semi-centralized authority is doing fine. We do not have to argue whether eBay, Amason, or Alipay is democratic or not, or whether it takes care of the poor or not. The answer is no. All are governed by dictators and they just care about their profit.
However, because those marketplaces have to compete with one another, they all behave reasonably well.
Often semi-centralized authorities also abuse their power. An exchange, called CoinMarket, did an exit scam. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2684461.880
The solution for that is to have a government arresting CoinMarket. However, governments are powerless against entities like CoinMarket. This is an important point.
Many time, as a capitalist, I want weaker government. There are times, however, that I wish government is stronger. I lost 1.5 bitcoin in a hack. I wish a government can kill the hacker, but I don’t expect it’ll hapen.
It will be nice if one day we have pure capitalism where everything is decentralized. However, that’s far from necessary. Such systems are not trivial. Semi-centralized authorities often deserve their paychecks.
Pure capitalism in everything is not necessary to properly align humans’ interests to productivity as a whole. As we see ourselves, cinemas, corporations, and nations, are often not very capitalistic inside. Our species, however, get more and more prosperous all the time.
The form of capitalism that most people are familiar with is what I call “inner” capitalism.
An inner capitalism is when a nation practices minarchism or libertarianism.
It’s hypothetical. No nation is purely minarchist or libertarian.
This lower capitalism has a few notable weakness.
The first is that it’s often not practiced. Just look at Venezuela or United Soviet Socialist of America. We can argue that those countries would be even richer if they are more capitalistic. Both are at least, partially socialists.
In the case of Venezuela, the case is pretty obvious. We see that it should have been more capitalistic. The case of the US is not obvious. Many people think that US is too capitalistic.
Why is capitalism not practiced fully?
A lot of reason.
Imagine if you are a dictator in one country like Suharto. Imagine if everyone competes to build a factory for sugars. Then the margin for that will be low.
Normal businesses have all their margin gone toward opportunity costs. To make more money, Suharto gives special licenses to certain people. That people then share the extra profit with Suharto.
We call this rent seeking.
Instead of producing better products that customers want, people try to be in power or lobby those who are in power.
Finally, Suharto was toppled. However, people would still want to practice the same cycle again.
It’s democracy that solves the problem of Suharto, not capitalism.
Capitalism alone doesn’t solve many problems.
Under capitalism, everything is okay, except force or fraud.
What counts as force or fraud is often debatable.
What about welfare parasites producing cradle to grave welfare parasites? Is it one of basic human right to produce as many children as they wish with tax payers’ money?
What about parents that do not vaccinate their children? We would think those parents force everyone to have a higher risk of disease. Yet, not vaccinating children is legal in most countries because of well, freedom.
Just like Suharto wants kickbacks from his cronies, welfare parasites want bigger and bigger welfare.
Knowing those welfare parasites will vote for bigger governments, many politicians want to create rules that encourage their breeding. That’s how the politician “caste” maintain their interests.
While breeding while poor hurt tax payers, such acts are legal in most countries. Democracy rewards those who do with bigger welfare, universal basic income, and voting right. Pretty much free shares without contribution.
Capitalism does not perform best in the military.
In capitalism, if you like burger you go to a burger, restaurant and if you like pizza, you go to pizza restaurant. Each goes their way is great in getting each people what they want.
However, when it comes to security, those who are a more united win.
The Southern Song dynasty is more capitalistic than the Mongol empire.
However, the Southern Song is smaller. Hence, the more united Mongol empire conquer Song and establish the Yuan dynasty.
When Xiang Yang fell, we have 200k troops on Mongol Empire defeating 7000 chinese defender. The Chinese are the only culture that the Mongol have to “overwhelm” with number before they win.
And yet, despite occasional failure like Venezuela, North Korea, Afganistan, and Syria our species prosper.
Even countries that’s not democratic like China prosper.
Because we have another form of capitalism, most people don’t see.
Because we have world peace. World peace is what I call outer capitalism.
You see. Countries are effectively capitalistic with each other now. States have rulers/owners/beneficiaries. Democratic countries, for example, have voters. Those voters vote for their best interests.
Countries achieve world peace with minimal or non-existent world government. There is no sovereign on top of sovereigns.
Just look at how much dues your country pay to say, UN. Very little. States are almost libertarian to each other.
Do you want to see where capitalism is practiced succesfully? Look at the globe. That’s one big globe of capitalism here.
If we have many stores, we don’t need to care about how each shop govern themselves. We will pick the store with the best product at the best price and go to where we like.
The same way, if nations are capitalistic to each other, we do not worry how each nation is governed. Each nation will automatically govern themselves well.
Otherwise, taxpayers will go to other nations slowly.
Capitalism in our countries depends a lot on outer capitalism between countries. If countries are capitalistic toward one another, countries will also practice capitalism, or whatever work, inside too.
World peace turn countries from centralized authority into effectively semi centralized authorities. Each country are like online stores competing for tax payers, investments, and talents.
If countries are not capitalistic toward one another, then capitalism inside will be very impractical.
Pure capitalism should not be practiced in a country where peace is not guaranteed. A country like Israel, for example. If Israel a libertarian country, it would have been destroyed by Arab. We have a case of a libertarian country utterly destroyed very quickly.
Tonga, a small weak country, destroy Minerva Republic.
Nevertheless, countries become more and more capitalistic.
That is why many countries become more and more capitalistic. Countries that are capitalistic become more prosperous. The people, either through ballots, or bullets, or threat of rebellion, demand capitalism all over the place.
That’s in a sense, the capitalistic way to promote capitalism. The US does not need to bomb any country to force another country to be capitalistic. Most countries, even China, embrace capitalism willingly because capitalism is so awesome.
A hypothetical capitalist country needs to do, is to practice capitalism, be prosperous, and attract all smart people to that region. Then the whole world will be capitalistic too, willingly.
Capitalism is unique. It’s the one peaceful ideology that does not need the guns or sword or terrorism to spread. At least not as much as other ideologies I know.
Anyone see how many terrorist slam airplanes to buildings to promote capitalism? How many suicide bombers scream long live Capitalism?
So we have outer capitalism and inner capitalism. What is sideways capitalism?
Sideways capitalism happens when competing private companies govern stuff that governments use to govern.
Say I buy stuff from Tokopedia (my favorite online store). Say I have a dispute. Do I go to court or complain to tokopedia?
I can go through my government’s normal slow and corrupt dispute resolution, or I can go to Tokopedia straight.
Tokopedia, uber, eBay, all resolve dispute very fairly. Otherwise, I go to another online shop.
Bitcoin also prevents any country to control capital. As customers can easily move their capital from one country to another, each country needs to govern capital fairly if they still want capitals to stay in their country.
Or look at marriage. Usually, governments govern marriage. Now, most babies are born outside marriage. We do not need governments to regulate marriage anymore.
In ancient time, we need governments to regulate taxies. That’s because small taxi company can rob their customers. Now with Uber, bad taxy drivers are fired and easily reported to cops.
All we need is just one country to allow bitcoins and that capitals will flow to that country.
So what do I mean by middle capitalism?
I mean infusing governments itself with the spirit of capitalism.
Capitalism is happening anyway.
It’s too slow, isn’t it?
Look at Venezuela. People starve to death first before they repent, if ever.
Look at some states in US legalizing weed. It’s already obvious that criminalizing weed is stupid. Yet it took so long for some states to legalize it. Then it will take another decade before the federal government legalizes it.
Why? Because voters do not run their states for profit, at least not explicitly.
Imagine if I am a King of California. I will legalize drugs, tax it, and make tons. It’s profitable. I will save money for jail. I will collect money from taxing those drugs. Many drug users are very productive tax payers. They will flock to my states and be tax payers for my state.
It’s very obvious.
Yet, democracy is not corporations. Voters care too much about things that are not profit.
If even one LSD user jump out of the cliff, it’ll cause hysteria among voters. Voters then ban LSD.
Voters do not care about profit. They care about justice and compassion about each other.
If only those voters care about profit, they will automatically be more just and compassionate. Now that they don’t seek their profit they do things that are neither just or caring.
Many voters care about drug users. They care. That’s why they declare drugs illegal and jail those users. Is it just? Is it compassionate?
Is compassion and justice the motive behind our votes?
Humans are hypocrites. We pretend we care about justice and compassion. We probably truly believe we care about justice and compassion. Our true desire may be far less politically incorrect than that.
What about if white supremacist wants drugs to be illegal so they can jail and disenfranchise a lot of blacks? What about if white supremacist want the minimum wage to keep blacks out of job?
Or what about if black people want the income tax to prevent other ethnics from making money?
Or what about if drugs are illegal so drug companies can have less competition and bribe officials.
It’s neither just nor beneficial.
What other ways we can improve our governments’ quality by infusing spirit of capitalism.
What about IPO?
Imagine if all province or state governments go IPO?
Imagine if each voting right has a valuation.
If you do not like the way your fellow citizen vote, you can sell your voting right in your state, and buy voting right in another state.
In the beginning, we can arrange that each individual can only have one and only one voting right, not more not less. So the country is still democratic here. One man one vote.
However, the state whose voters pick better governor will have their voters valuation going up. A state who choose stupid governor will have their voters valuation going down.
Now, we have an objective measure of whether we pick the right governor or the wrong governor. Just look at your state valuation.
Or what about turning all welfare checks into a universal basic income. My idea is similar to Andrew Yang except that I am far more conservative. I think universal basic income should replace welfare rather than increasing tax. Andrew’s idea of raising sales tax is not too bad though.
Or what about making citizenship more like shares. That is, you can inherit your citizenship but you do not get it just for being born at the right place.
Hence, a soldier that died in Vietnam can inherit his citizenship to his only son. His only son can vote twice and get a double dividend.
On the other hand, some feckless father that produce 40 children will have to choose vasectomy or welfare on his 1st child.
You don’t like paying income tax?
Nation states, after all, are closer to defensive pact rather than corporations. The rich and wealthy benefit from the defense pact more than the poor. So it is reasonable that the rich pay more tax than the poor.
Unlike most capitalists I am not totally against wealth redistribution. I am rich. I do not want terrorist to blow me up. If my neighbor is poor, I want that poor guy to vote for government that will protect me. If that means the poor get money so be it.
However, is it really have to be complicated? Does it have to be an income tax?
What about if we let each state or province to tax their population in any way they wish. The united federal government then collect tax from states proportional to say, the states land value or the prosperity of the state.
Like it or not capitalism is creeping. We will have more and more capitalism.
Let’s speed that up.
The country that practice capitalism the most will be the first to be the richest and most prosperous.