Benefit of Further Privatization of Governments

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Many governments are already like private parties. Countries compete with one another. States in United states compete with one another. Some country, like Dubai, has tons of immigrants. So most people that live in Dubai consent to be there.

Governments provide protection service on certain territories. The tax payers are the consumers. The voters are the owners.

Under democracy, the role of tax payers, visitors, and owners are lumped into one. I think that is a bad idea.

The closer governments are run like private companies the better the result.

In ancient time, western European countries compete with one another like businesses. And they dominate the world. China that govern like, well, governments are sluggish.

While Ming Dynasty prohibited global trade, competing European countries explore and colonize the world. While Qing dynasty in China prohibited weapon technology, technology in Europe become advances because they have to compete for strength.

In fact, as a chinese, I am quite concerned that if we keep agreeing to slow down our weapon technology, some aliens will come and colonize our planet. Just kidding.

Unlike businesses, European wage war against one another. After world war 2, they lost all their colonies.

The result isn’t that bad though. Now, countries all over the world, not just Europe are governed like businesses. Countries compete with one another. Their citizens are like owners and their tax payers are like customers.

States in US too are already like business.

And that is why US is prosperous. I think every large country should at least try to be federal like US.

It can still be improved though. There are issues that mere federalization do not solve that privatization of states can solve.

  1. Welfare parasites breeding.

In privatized states, shares are inherited. If someone breed 20 children, his children will have to share his one share. In most western countries, some feckless father can produce 40 children 40 children by 20 mothers: the feckless father who insists ‘God says go forth and multiply’ each of which have some share on the country.

Democracy have a solution to address this. As usual the solution is far from optimum.

Life is tough for welfare parasites. Think about it. If life is easy, they would breed more. So the conservative try to make life tough for the poor. The liberal give money for the poor and the conservative make life miserable while jailing tons of people. It’s like a tug of war.

We hold this truth with plenty of evidence that the majority of people with lower than 85 IQ aren’t going to be useful for any job. In fact, the military, that wants as many cannon fodders as possible, do not hire anyone lower than 83 IQ. Is it truly illegal for the US army to hire someone with IQ less than 83?

The chinese have saying. Good irons are not made into nails. Good people are not made into soldiers. If even the military don’t want to hire those lower than 83 IQ, you think anyone in private sector would? Well, at least Jordan Peterson makes that argument.

The best thing anyone that cannot get a job do is to stop breeding. Seriously. Either start a business like me or stop breeding.

Look at income tax and welfare combo. Bob is poor. If Bob work hard, he gets taxed. If Bob breed, he get tax money. So Bob breed instead of working hard.

The truth is, the Georgists actually have a good point. If you want to redistribute wealth, just give cash like shareholders getting dividend. In fact, they advocate citizenship dividend.

However, under current democracy, where every child is a citizen, irrelevant of merit or payment from dad, it can’t work. If you give more shares and dividend to the poor they breed, and breed, and breed, and breed, and your country will be filled with poor people that do nothing but breed and get welfare check.

As someone that were once poor but now quite successful, I know that cash would have helped me a lot. I would have had more capital to start my internet business and got rich faster. I did finally make it. All governments’ help to help the poor prevent poor people from getting rich.

So in democracy you have this tug of war. Some wants bigger redistribution of wealth and another make sure that live is still shitty for the unproductive even though the redistribution of wealth is already big.

In privatization of states, we can at least see how much it costs to give free citizenship to each welfare parasite child. We would see that it’s cheaper to just pay them to stop breeding. Or we can give welfare in exchange of temporary sterilization. The sterilization can be reversed once the poor guy, after we give money and capital, proof that he can contribute positively to society.

  1. Democracy tend to be harsh on rich guys having children.

Western civilization is great at ensuring that money go to those who deserve. I got to acknowledge that. They’re very good. And that is why they’re the richest countries in the world.

Westernized nations, like China, and Japan are like that too.

After getting money what? What’s the point of having all the money in the world if you can’t inherit it to your children?

Ironically when western civilizations have so much laws encouraging the poor to breed, it has so many laws discouraging the smart and productive from breeding.

Polygamy is illegal. Prostitution is illegal and it also prevents rich men from just paying women to breed babies. Sexual harassment laws prevent the rich from offering hiring and fucking combo. Paternity tests to ensure inheritance are properly distributed are often made illegal. Alimony and child support payment can be insanely high for the rich. Charlie Sheen Claims He Can’t Afford Current Child Support Payments

When the poor breed a million children, it’s human’s right. When the rich breed 10-20, it’s legally impossible because the child support will bankrupt him. To avoid paying child support, a guy must stay in politically correct heavily regulated monogamous relationship.

Democracy see the rich as alpha males that need to be brought down. People tend to vote their best competitors out.

A privatized state will see that breeding tax paying contributing citizens as profitable. Importing them will be profitable too.

Hell, you can tax children. The rich will breed and pay the tax with no issue. In fact, we can require anyone that want to breed to buy another share. If Bill Gates have 10 children and welfare parasites have 1, poverty will be gone in no time.

  1. Immigration among states

Say voters in Detroit messes up and their city becomes poor. Voters in New York is wise, and their city becomes rich. What happens?

The poor go to the rich region. This provides very little incentive for population in one state to vote wisely for that state.

This means 2 problems. Voters have little incentive to be wise because they can simply move to another state. Also, bad voting strategy spread.

Sometimes it’s hard to make a balance solution under humanitarian crisis.

Imagine you build a good house. Then your neighbor that breed 10 children build a bad house. And then their house broke. You accept that neighbor into your house, and then they just outvote you out of your house.

In democracy that’s how things work. The refugees become citizens, citizens vote, and they got power simply by moving in.

It shouldn’t be that way. If you build a good house, you should be able to shelter 10 starving children without going all the way losing your house. Hell, you should at least tell those children to wash dishes and clean the house up in exchange of your free logging.

I would make them make vlog praising how generous I am and promote some product. That’s the capitalistic way. Just kidding. Well, there are plenty poor children on the street I do almost nothing. It’s the normal way.

This is what happens with Europe. If you allow refugees, they become citizens and pretty much own your country. The opposition then tell to just kick refugees out.

A profit seeking privatized states would make win win deals with those refugees. Their best and brightest can be hired. The man can become soldiers, the women can become sex workers, the ugly can be returned, the land deed they own can be shared with to you in exchange of NATO protection.

Europeans can even enlarge your territory legitimately while making the people happy. There are many many ways to do this mutually beneficially when your competitor messed up.

In a privatized state, only those buying shares become shareholders. And they must pay market price. That means they must like the way the state is run way more than “the market”. Anyone buying your shares will share your value, so to speak. They value it enough they’re willing to pay for it.

Let me give you a sample.

In some country like Indonesia, the muslims vote based on religion. A governor that govern very effectively is jailed for supposedly “insulting religions”.

Jakarta governor Ahok jailed two years for blasphemy, ordered to serve term immediately

Ahok is a chinese christian governor that’s so popular he could be an Indonesian president based on popularity alone. Yap. A christian chinese president in a muslim majority country can get elected. His main barrier is not his popularity but some legal issues baring him from that. The legal issue is his previous conviction of blaspheming against Islam.

After that event, I am no longer a free border libertarian. Some people, living in shit hole deserves their shit hole.

I do not know how wise the Muslims in Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, or whatever. But those are all fail states. I guess, not very wise. May be democracy isn’t that cool for Muslims.

Then what happen? They become refugee, go to Europe, and then become citizen, and vote. How do they vote? The same mindset that makes their country messed up is then used to vote in Europe. I am sure, in this forum, you have realized how many people are afraid of islamization of Europe. You should be.

That’s what happens under democracy. Bad idea leads to bad votes that lead to bankrupt regions or warzone. People in bankrupt regions move to richer regions bringing their bad ideas. Then they turn rich regions into bad regions too.

The Europe have laws against allowing immigration to get in. However, people within a country do not have such laws. People in detroit is free to move to new York. Also, any immigrant that just work will become citizens eventually.

Of course, the Muslims in Indonesia aren’t that bad. 30% still vote for Ahok. Ahok is now free and make very popular video blog. Also, Indonesian’s murder rate is only 1/10th of US. So I got to admit the Muslims do have positive side.

Even some those who wants Syariah or whatever, actually just want their own region. I’d say, great. Build whatever they wish, as long as not where I live or as long as I can just move somewhere else.

At first, I was enraged at the Muslims. However, I realized that the issue has something to do with democracy itself.

Some Muslim countries that behave like private corporations, like Dubai and Qatar are doing well. Dubai is like a private corporation because most of the inhabitants there are immigrants. Dubai has to make his country attractive for “customers” or immigrants if they want to “monetize” those immigrants just like corporations have to make their products attractive if they want to benefit from customers.

And this is an important point. Dubai and Qatar aren’t even a democracy, and yet they are run well. They are Muslims, they’re not democratic, and yet they are governed well. That’s because Dubai is run like a corporation. It has owners, namely the king. It doesn’t dilute ownership no matter how many populations it has. It must compete with other kingdoms and countries, just like every other country. Almost all the people in Dubai consent to be there because Dubai is a country full of immigrants. And Dubai’s citizens are getting good deals anyway.

Do I like it? Well, I still don’t like Islam to be honest. Islam is way low on my totem pole of preferred ideology. I don’t believe in any religion and don’t like religion in general to be frank.

So yea, I won’t move to Dubai. However, I also do not feel threatened or violated in any way that Dubai discriminate against non Muslim. I simply don’t go there. I also congratulate and admire their achievements to build a prosperous nation and wish them good luck.

I found it strange that western Europeans feel that they do not have right to ban burgha because discrimination is wrong. It’s their country. Why bent over backward for those who are not shareholders and not offering a lot for you anyway? Other countries don’t do that.

Muslim countries discriminate against non Muslims. The Singapore favor Chinese for immigration. Israel favor jews in immigration. So is China. Russia don’t bend over backward. Why is it the White europeans that have to be “neutral”?

If some Muslims come to your area and pay money, then yea, bend over backward. But if some refugees come? Why not just be “reasonable”.

In fact, I think western countries should mimic those islamic monarch in some area. Does Dubai accept muslim refugees? No.

Democracy have many political games to consider whether to accept refugees or not. The libtards in western countries may want to have more voters. So, they will push for refugee to come and be citizens to strengthen their party in one or 2 generation.

A privatized country will just make mutually beneficial deal with those refugees. Get in. Work with higher tax or still low salary (like in Dubai), and get out once we’re done.

Western countries can help those refugees humanely and cheaply. Rich countries can buy the land of those refugees and protect and charge fair protection fee. I am sure Assad won’t fight toe and nails if he has only to let go say, 50% of Syria under western protectorate. Rather than importing Islamic ideology to Europe, the Europeans should be exporting their ideology to Islamic world.

Rich successful countries should export their ideology to poor countries, not the other way around.

I am not talking about militaristic colonization. I am thinking about capitalistic colonization where the population in the land are happy too. They can’t defend themselves from ISIS. Surely, they’re willing to be NATO protectorate for mutually beneficial arrangements.

Successful companies got rich, have cash, and can buy smaller companies. Successful states should also be able to acquire poorer states with cash. The problem with western colonization is not the colonization itself. It’s the violent that goes with it. Everybody was violent before capitalism.

Now, the Chinese colonize Africa with money. That’s good. Africans are getting prosperous. You know what would even be better for those Africans? If western countries compete and do what the Chinese do.

  1. More individualized diverse choice for population

Under democracy, 51% people rule. 49% have to follow the 51%. In practice, the median is almost always moderate. But that leads to another problem. Everywhere in democratic countries. In every election you have a twin candidate.

Under privatized states, people can move from one state to another. Under states in United states, people can too.

However, you still need to convince a lot of people to get what you want. Colorado legalize weed. Do you know that MDMA and DMT is harmless too?

Why not let each city decide what they want to legalize? And why can’t they make decisions faster like businesses? Try. Fail, revert. Success try again. In fact, privatize only 1 city, or one village, and let’s see.

In business, you don’t accept all customers. You accept customers that are willing to pay. You don’t accept those who you don’t like or don’t like you.

I do not go to Burger King wanting to buy a car. It doesn’t make sense. Normal states in the west have to accept every body. The gay, the Muslims, the blasphemers, the heretics, the apostates, the white supremacists, the black supremacists, people of all races, people of all religions. Many of them naturally hate each other that kow towing to one will make another unhappy.

In my countries there are tons of people that don’t like each other. The conservative muslims do not like Ahmadiyya and non-Muslims. The libertarians, like me, do not like religious conservatives.

Say I am a libertarian. Say I meet fellow libertarians and say, hi let’s found a libertarian province. We do, build the province, and become prosperous. Then what? The the religious conservative will just immigrate and then they just vote prohibiting porn, music, internet.

The same way, those conservative Muslims want to build a syariah region in their provinces. Once they got what they like, the liberal and libertarian comes to stay with them and demand equal right, secularism, bla bla….

Kind of stupid right?

In privatized states, each state has more leeway on how to govern.

I am not white. If I am an American, and those KKK wants to create a white only town, I would say go ahead. Awesome. What is so wrong with people not liking me wanting to live far away from me?

States in western world have far less leeway. Also, there are too many federal laws. Every population in a state have to pay huge income tax even though I am sure land tax is cheaper.

Privatization of states, provinces, and cities will lead to much more diverse choices. And you don’t need to convince anyone that you are right. Just vote with your feet and your wallet.

Do I need to convince other burger kings’ customers that burger king should provide pizza? No. I just go to pizza hut.

Do you need to convince other citizens that weed should be legal? In democracy you always argue argue argue. Aren’t you tired of arguing with people that don’t care about you and want you to suffer?

I do not blame burger king for not selling bike. Why should I blame Dubai government for favoring islam?

In US, people will go nuts if a government favor any religion. Look, the more those statists have their own regions, the easier it would be for the libertarian too have their own regions too.

  1. You can more easily know how well your country/states/province is run and you are benefited when it is run well so you have incentive to be correct

Most people can’t govern. Seriously. Most people can’t even lead 100 people. Most of us do not know information important to make decision. Also, most of us have different idea of what “good” is.

Good? Good for who? According to who? I would say anything good for me to be good for everyone is just or whatever.

We got to make the best decisions. Okay. Best decisions for who? What you think is good may be different than what I think is good. Even if we want the same thing, we may have very different ways to achieve it.

Imagine governments wanting to build universities. Is it good? Or what about governments building universities and letting only the smartest citizens to get in. Is this fair for all other tax payers? Or what about if governments discriminate based on race? Or what about if it’s not based on race. What about if governments discriminate based on hair color?

Libertarians would argue that governments cannot do anything. Which is too extreme. Liberals would argue that governments cannot discriminate based on race. However, there are many ways to discriminate based on race. You can, for example, discriminate based on skin color or hair color.

Some would argue that governments can discriminate based on good discrimination, such as IQ, but not based on bad discrimination, such as race. But how do we decide what’s discrimination is good or bad?

People always discriminate. Who among us knows what discrimination is good or bad. If I go to Burger King, I can’t buy a car because Burger King doesn’t sell car and hence, discriminating people that want to buy car.

What do I do? Cry? Strap bombs demanding Burger King to put car on their menu? I go to Toyota dealer. Simple right?

So is it a good idea for governments to build universities? Discriminate based on this or that? I don’t know. Why don’t we check whether by doing so, the local governments attract more tax payers or not. If it does, good, if not, bad.

Just like Burger Kings. Should Burger Kings sell car? Well, no. Why not? Because, they don’t make more money if they do not discriminate against car buyers.

Bill Gates discriminate based on IQ, that also correlates with race, by the way. Is it good? Well. Microsofit is doing fine. So it looks good.

In business, all those good or bad boils down to one number. The share valuation growth. If valuation go up, it’s good. If valuation go down, it’s bad.

Simple right? You can know how well your corporation is run by looking at stock price. If you corporation produces killer product that customers want to buy, then the stock price go up.

Good for who? In corporation, rising stock price is pretty much good for everyone. Every share holder will equally be happy. It’s also what’s good for customers because otherwise they wouldn’t buy.

Which customers? Well, it varies from companies to companies. For Microsoft, producing better software is good. For Toyota, producing better cars is a better way to collect money.

Say governments wants to build a church or mosque? What kind of tax payers live in the area? If building a church or mosque or baphomet makes certain people want to come there and pay taxes, why not?

Not so in democracy. In democracy, we argue argue argue. We want something that benefit us but we act as it benefit everyone.

Some Muslims are angry when some non Muslims complain about azan voice. Many non Muslims also aren’t happy with a mosque among them.

So how does share holders choose then? Shareholders choice are much easier. They choose CEO that maximize return of their investment.

Any shareholders that do not like the decision of other shareholders can simply sell their share at market price. Any customers that do not like the company’s direction can buy from different shops.

When the choice is right, every shareholder is profited. What’s good for one shareholder is, more or less, what’s good for every other shareholder.

In democracy it’s the opposite. One voting blocs would vote in ways that hurt another voting bloc even when they themselves are not profited. Benefits from the state do not come from the success of the state but from how savvy a voting bloc can screw another. Too much bullshit. Too little numbers.

Under democracy we will never know what’s good for all of us because perhaps, there is no such thing. What’s good for me may be bad for you. Privatization of states will reduce that. That’s because each of us can choose to live in state that we like, and own shares of state we think is governed well.

1 thought on “Benefit of Further Privatization of Governments”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.