Capitalistic Democracy. A system that only require greed and selfishness

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

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.

Why US used to be libertarian and why it became more socialist?

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.

Capitalistic Democracy

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.

Outer Capitalism, Inner Capitalism, Sideways Capitalism, and Middle Capitalism and the rise of Semi Centralized Authorities

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.

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.

I think the main value of a country can be measured by the financial return to it’s current citizens/rulers/owners


What about other values?

What about liberty? If you don’t value freedom, you lose both money and liberty. If you don’t appreciate security, you lost both money and security.

And that’s precisely the point.

Because you will lose money when you don’t value liberty and security, a country wanting to get rich will appreciate freedom and security automatically.

It will be like interviewing McDonald CEO.

Why do you care only about money o McDonald CEO? You should also think about producing delicious burgers.

The CEO will explain that it’s because he cares about the money he will also make a delicious burger.

A CEO that is too obsessed with making delicious burgers will over-allocate resources spent on burger research. Those CEOs will make less money for their corporations.

When that happens, fewer customers can enjoy their burgers.

A CEO that is properly obsessed with making money will also make a delicious burger. CEOs that are obsessed with making delicious burgers will not necessarily make money and will lose both the burgers and the money.

The same way, if we are concerned too much about liberty, to the point of legalizing unvaccinated kids, we will get sick. Then we will lose security and liberty.

If we’re concerned too much about security to the point that we don’t trade with foreigners, like the ancient Ming dynasty, we will lost both money, and can’t pay troops, and got swallowed by the Qing.

If McDonald’s burger is not delicious, customers won’t come. Hence, it’s toward McDonald’s best interest to make the delightful burger.

Making delicious burger can be a mean to an end of making money. It can be an end by itself. If it’s just a means to an end, we can see if it’s okay by seeing how much money it makes.

If it’s an end by itself, we can judge whether it’s a right end or not by whether it’s making money.

Either case, we can see whether McDonald’s delicious burger is a good strategy or not, something difficult to measure because delicious is vague, to whether the burgers make money or not. That is easier to measure.

The same way, saying immigrants are good or not, whether legalization of drugs is good or not, whether regulation is good or not, is hard to measure.

However, good immigration policy will make a country prosper. Sensible legalization of drugs will attract productive taxpayers. Sensible regulation that promotes fairness and honesty in business will improve economy and income.

Corporations share price and dividend reflects how well shareholders manage the corporations. Citizenship valuation reflects how well citizens manage their country.

If I look at Syria, Afganistan, Iraq, and Venezuela, I can conclude that their citizens are not wise.

I think it’s much easier to sell capitalism with this agenda than saying it’s right or wrong.

Free Market is Good. However, it Shouldn’t be a Mantra

Most libertarians have a point. The free market is good. The private sector is good. The public sector is usually bad.
This has 2 flaws. It’s not very deep. Yes. It’s true. But why is it true? Even if it’s good, how to achieve that? Good for who? Quite often, libertarianism are not good for those who make the decissions, namely voters.
Also libertarianism sucks when it comes to securing protection. Countries like Israel and Lebanon cannot be libertarian.
On the other hand, democracy is not awesome either. So why  not get the best of both world. Something like capitalistic democracy. Just turn voters into owners. Then see if the country become more or less libertarian?
Saying that free market is great is like mantra or formula. It’s like knowing Pythagoras theorem without knowing the derivation. Pythagoras theorem is true but you also need to know how to derive that.
Why is the free market good? Because it brings prosperity and fairness automatically or almost semi automatically. Under free market every individuals’ interests are properly aligned to productivity as a whole. The price of your service is the marginal utility of such service for the society.
In fact, nations that behave like private companies tend to perform better. When nations have to compete with one another, for example, they lower corporate tax.
To the opposite, when a private company does not have competition, they will be quite problematic.
Can we learn and implement the same thing in the public sector? I think to a lot of extend we can. Just look at Uber.
Free market individualized karma. If someone sells a bad product, not everyone has to buy it. This provides an incentive for buyers to be careful and correct. In case the customer is already alert and yet things still go wrong, such as in case of fraud, the government gets involved.
In democracy, the link is not that strong. A politician can lie to 51% of the population and still get elected. The voters themselves do not have the incentive to be correct.
Free market properly aligns people’s interests in productivity. We don’t have that in democracy. If your country is so good, a lot of people will come to your place and become voters too. Many voters do not want their country to be attractive to immigrants.
Many voters want a land price to go down. Voters that govern their area well will have the land price going up. However, most voters are not land owners, and that means their rent went up. So they don’t like too much road or security.
In the free market, all shareholders interests are properly aligned. We vote well because there is no conflict of interest.
In a democracy, people vote against another voters. The interests diverge.
Libertarians have two weaknesses. It doesn’t profit those who are in power. It doesn’t even care. Libertarians are too far aligned from interests of those who are in control.
Many welfare parasites will starve if their country is libertarian. Also, governments are more similar to defense pact than corporations.
If libertarians can take care of that, they can make their region far more libertarian. Sacrifice some principles to get more on the other area.

Problems with Universal Basic Income

Many people support some form of universal basic income.

I like that too. It’s like corporations.

All citizens have a share. Now, each citizen can vote.

However, it seems to have one massive flaw.

In corporations, each shareholder earns its share by contributing to the corporation.

In a country, a citizen earns their share by being born in the right place.

We have guys like

He contributes almost nothing to the economy, but he produced 40 children.

The thing is, Andrew Young must have thought of that.

That is why Andrew limit Universal Basic Income to 18 years old and up.

But even this not good enough. The poor will want to breed more because they don’t have to worry about their kids anyway once the kid reaches 18 years old.

While this is a fundamental problem of democracy, it’ll be even worse with Universal Basic Income.

I think Universal Basic Income is a good idea if not because of this one big flaw.

Why Full Libertarian-ism is Impractical and Why We Should Aim for What’s Good Enough

The full free market is impossible. Full libertarianism is impossible.

But if we have a free market on top of things, that’s good enough.

Find a cinema governed by the free market. In a sense, none are. In a sense, all are.

Each cinema has owners that govern the cinema. That owner can decide what movie to show and that you can’t bring your popcorn to the cinema.

However, the cinema themselves are governed by the market. If the owner decides to raise the ticket price you go to another cinema. If the owners murder customers, government get involved.

Murdering customers are “wrong.” That’s why even a libertarian like me will want somebody, either government or protectors or protectorate sponsors to interfere and punish murder.

Raising ticket price unfairly is also wrong. However, I do not consider that as too crazy because it’s something that can be corrected automatically by the free market anyway.

Things go wrong if I do not know the price before I get into the cinema and then once I am in they charged me a million dollar saying that there is a price increase.

The same with the state.

The free market does not govern the states. Not directly. We have voters; we have dictators, we have kings.

However, the states are governed by free market indirectly. As states compete with one another, countries become more and more minarchists.

States with high tax will have their taxpayers move to another country. A nation with minimum wage will have their jobs move to China.

So raising tax too high is “wrong” in my opinion. However, we don’t need to worry about that too much. Even if states have the right to raise tax too much, their rulers will, often have the incentive not to.

High taxes drive taxpayers away, like top ticket price drive customers away.

All we need to do is to speed that up.

States that are ruled by Luddites like the Qing dynasty will be forced to sign bad deals by more advanced states.

Countries already compete with one another. Let’s make provinces do that too.

I like libertarianism. I think the primary purpose of a state should be enforcing contracts and protecting people from force or fraud.

But how do we achieve that? How do we “force” a state to be libertarian?
We can’t. Even if we can, I am not sure about how right it is.

Is it okay to force China to import opium? What about forcing Europe to allow more immigrants? Or what about forcing Saudi Arabia to be secular? Or what about forcing Qatar to be democratic?

Is it right to do so?

Many people have this mindset that my ideology is the best, the only right one, and everyone must use this same ideology.

The communist, the capitalist, the democratist, the theocratist think that their idea is so great everyone should do it. They all think that the whole world should use their ideology. Often, libertarians are like that too.

I disagree. I like libertarianism. However, I do not consider those not libertarians as wrong. Like I love cheese, but it doesn’t mean that those who like chocolate is wrong.

I think rules from each state should be minimal just like rules for corporations.

Those should be things like
1. Don’t attack other states
2. Don’t prevent citizens from going out (unless probably jailed criminals)
3. Don’t change laws too abruptly so those who don’t like it can go
4. Don’t crucify cats (optional)
5. Do whatever you want. Just get rich.

That’s pretty much it. I think the market will take care of the rest.

States with too much tax will have taxpayers go to other countries.

I am not even sure rule #4 is essential. I mean, yet if a state can crucify cats, those states will have all tourists go. Also, other countries won’t join in the alliance of protecting such lands.

States that violate #4 will justly and karmically be invaded and conquered by other countries.

Too much libertarianism can lead to statism. Tolerating some statism can lead to minarchism

I am a minarchist.

Am I a statist or libertarian?

I think full libertarianism can lead to statism and tolerating statism can lead to more minarchism.

For example. Eliminate governments. Well, we will kill each other. Mafia will rules. That becomes governments and hence statism.

Tolerate statism. Allow states to do most things except attacking one another, preventing people from leaving, or changing laws too abruptly.

We also need people with power over the state and ability to be profited if the country is attractive to many taxpayers.
One possible arrangement is to assign owners to provinces or cities. Initial owners can be citizens of the provinces or cities. It’s called privatizing states.
Another is to open governorship to corporations. So a super wise guy like Bill Gates can effectively be governor for a few corporations and cities.
Make profit sharing agreement where the corporations will get richer if the states are attractive to tax payers.
Each state will have the incentive to provide values at the minimum amount of tax.

That’s pretty minarchists to me.

Many states will be minarchists. Libertarians can move there.
Many states may not be minarchists. But who cares? Just don’t live there.


Perhaps, the Market Doesn’t Have to Govern Everything Directly

Say I go to the cinema.

The cinema has a dictator regulating things.

In theater one they show captain marvel. Why? I protested. I think captain marvel should be in theater 2, and dead pool should be in theater 1.

My protest went to a deaf ear, and I am escorted out of the cinema.

Then I start thinking. First, the above story didn’t happen. It’s just an illustration.

The market doesn’t govern the cinema. The market principle doesn’t govern which movie is being shown. The cinema has managers and owners with the ultimate powah to govern the cinema.

Hell, I don’t even have the right to bring my popcorn to the cinema.

The rulers of the cinema decide that bringing my popcorn is not a human right and they said I couldn’t.

Is this wrong?

Well, what’s important is I am getting an excellent win-win deal right. Things can be consensual or not. Things can violate humans’ right or not.

What’s genuinely matter is I am getting a good deal.

Yes, consents and humans’ right tend to give me good deals. Those who bring good deals to me go through the front door of consent. Those who bring bad deals to me go through the backdoors of fraud and force.

So my consent and independent should be a value by itself. However, it shouldn’t be absolute. Many consensual deals are effectively fraudulent.

Many nonconsensual deals are good.

I remembered a long time ago. A friend of mine paid $3500 for insurance that worths only $35.

Is my friend getting a good deal?


Is it consensual? Well, arguably.

The fee is not written clearly in the contract and my friend sign that he understands and agrees to the whole arrangement.

It still sucks right?

Another friend got a good governor managing his city. Is it consensual? No. Not in a libertarian sense anyway. He votes for the governor. However, other citizens vote for the governor too.

Next five years the good governor is replaced by a bad governor against his consent either.

But that good governor, even though become his governor through a method that’s not entirely consensual, is nevertheless a good governor.

Voting doesn’t mean things are consensual. Your choices depend on the choices of others too much.

Letting provinces to govern as they please and then you move to provinces you like is far more consensual.

Is the market not governing the cinema? I can just move to another cinema.

That’s the market way.

Cinemas are not directly governed by the market. The market God doesn’t come to the cinema’s owner and say turn Captain Marvel in theater 1.

What the market does is almost nothing. We have a government that prohibits force and fraud. When it comes to cinemas, governments are quite libertarian.

Then customers like me choose my cinema.

The market doesn’t govern each cinema directly. We don’t have a fully automated free market cinema yet.

The market governs cinema indirectly.

What about the states?

Many states are not libertarians. We got minimum wage; we got laws against victimless crimes.

In my country, 70% of prisoners are caught for using drugs. The laws themselves are not clear. We got laws against possession with harsh sentence and laws against usage with light sentences.

Of course, anyone that use must have possessed. So judges have some leeway in deciding, depending on the bribes, who goes to jail.

Does it suck? Well. Is my country poor? Yes.

Do you think my country is a shit hole? You haven’t seen Syria, Venezuela, or I don’t know. What about Detroit?

You see. States too are governed by karma or the free market. Poorly governed countries go wrong. The well-governed state gets rich.

As states becoming more and more similar to private companies, countries are governed better and better.

So like libertarians, I like the free market and don’t want governments intervention. Most are bad.

However, I wouldn’t be too pessimistic on governments intervention by itself.

Look at any governments’ intervention that you don’t like. The free market will get rid of it too.

Imagine governments giving minimum wage to everyone. Do you think they can keep doing it? Jobs will move to China then.

Huge tax? Well. Corporations will merely incorporate somewhere else with lower fees and taxes.

What about if I can’t leave? What about if no country wants to accept me?

Well, that’s a problem I can solve. That’s something I can work on and well within my control. I have to make my self more attractive to countries.


Get rich. Have my businesses.

If one government doesn’t like you, it may be that governments’ fault. If all governments do not like you, then something is wrong with you. Maybe your IQ is not high enough. Maybe you’re not an athlete.

Libertarianism is about what’s inside of you more than what’s outside of you.

States governments, however, happens often due to what’s outside than what’s inside.

If your state faces tough competition, like China or the US, then they get better.

If your state doesn’t have competitors, like China throughout thousands of years, then things will go bad and we have dynasty cycles again and again and again.

Just look at this comprehensively and stop dividing things into useless category.