Not everything have to use certain principles. Instead, we have to try different things and experiment.

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

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.

Summary of Problems with Libertarianism

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?

Or what about

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.



Problems with Democracy

Democracy have 3 main problems


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.