Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
There are often a difference between an externality and a perceived externality.
The most obvious sample is nuclear energy and drugs. Both have high perceived externality. People think they are very dangerous.
However, their actual harm is actually much lower. At least some people think it’s low enough.
A city that legalize drugs and nuclear reactors will make tons of money with little negative consequences.
Under standard democracy, it doesn’t matter. If people think something is dangerous, they don’t allow it. That’s it. Something can be very good, it won’t even be tried.
Under normal democracy people are free to move to any place they want. So the whole country is homogen.
If 80% of people hate nuclear reactor, we would expect, in all cities, 60-90% of the people will hate nuclear reactor in all states.
Nuclear reactor won’t be used anywhere.
Of course it’s not efficient.
What’s more efficient is if 20% of people love nuclear reactor, those 20% of the people can live in an area with nuclear reactor and enjoy all the benefit. The interest of the other 80% of the people is irrelevant. They’re not near the nuclear reactor anyway?
A lot of political
A politican can have a great idea on how to cut budgets and deliver better result. Such politicians often end up in jail rather than elected.
Here is a sample.
So what’s the solution?
One solution is libertarianism. Anyone can build nuclear reactor. That’s a bit too far.
That nuclear reactor is perceived to be dangerous. It’s not dangerous. However, ignoring what people believe is a kind of
Imagine if a shop can force customers to buy the product arguing that the product is good. That’s going to be problematic because then the shop can sell bad product.
Democracy serves its purpose by ensuring that the government benefits the people. Yes, people don’t know what’s good for them. However, not honoring what people believe will lead to similar problems.
So what would be a good solution?
Simple. A town can sell licenses to build nuclear reactor. If the people on that town is nuclear friendly, the licensing fee will be cheap. If the people of the town is nuclear unfriendly, the licensing fee will be expensive.
Then? Then all residence on the town will get cash. The licensing fee is simply divided into all voting residence equally.
Now, people can choose. They can get cash and live in the town, or they can live in other town and don’t get cash.
The same go with drugs and other externalities.
Here realities matter. If the nuclear reactor is really dangerous, then people in the town will take a higher risk of dying that’s not worth the cash. However, if a nuclear reactor is not dangerous, then the people in the town will get, well, free cash.
A businessman will just look at the licensing cost, figure out that the cost of nuclear reactor will of course be cheaper even with the licensing fee, build the nuclear reactor. The electricity can be sold to other towns. Other towns will see that it’s profitable and will sell licenses too.
What about voters that do not like the nuclear reactor? Well, they can sell their share in the city, and move somewhere else.
What about if we don’t really know whether the nuclear reactor is a good idea or not?
Voters can speculate. We can let 5% of the shares of the city to be bought and sold freely on the market.
If it turns out the nuclear reactor is a good idea, anyone buying the share of a city will make money. If it turns out the nuclear reactor blows up, speculant that buy the shares of a city will lost money.
The share prices on the market will decide how much money a resident can collect if he leaves. So everyone, even those who don’t like the idea, will be profited if the city pick a correct decisions.
Under normal democracy, nuclear reactor will be difficult to be build anywhere. Imagine a country where 80% of the people don’t want nuclear reactor no matter what. Under normal democracy, people are free to live anywhere within the country.
They get their right to vote by moving in, not by buying shares.
So everywhere in the country, about 80% don’t like nuclear reactor, and nuclear reactors are not build anywhere. For things to change, we need 50% of the people to like nuclear reactors.
If we turn voters into owners, even if only 20% of people like nuclear reactor, those 20% people can move to a region, vote for nuclear reactor, and enjoy the benefit of nuclear reactors’ licenses.
Even those that’s not moving in or out can benefit themselves by being correct. If I know that nuclear reactors are harmless and people think they are harmful, I will just buy shares of cities with nuclear reactors in it. The city will be prosperous and my share prices will go up.
Here, reality will have more bites than in normal democracy. People are rewarded for being correct and shareholders, rather than voters, will have incentive to be correct.
We can use this for almost all of controversial government policies. Is multiculturalism good? Should we bend over backward for minorities? Should we allow automation? Should we tax income or land?
Now everyone can vote, not just with their ballot but with their money. If you think multiculturalism will make a city prosper you can buy shares on cities that practice multiculturalism. If latter the cities are more prosperous you make a fortune. If latter the cities are less prosperous, you lose money.
What about democracy? What about if all the shares in a city is owned by investors? What about if the people rebel?
Simple. We can keep things democratic. We just ensure that 95% of the shares must be owned by the resident. A small restriction. Anyone that move in and want to stay in and vote
It’s normally practices in business too. Many businesses want their employee to have a stake at the business. That reduces the incentive of employee to sabotage the business.
The same way, just like in democracy, we need to ensure that all residence that live there have a stake at the city. So ensure that all residence have a share.
We know people survive just fine in poor countries. I am one such people. If anything, there are more business opportunities in poorer countries than in highly developed ones.
A city with a better system can easily collect money by selling residency. If a city wants to build and the airport, the city can “allow” say, 2000 people to immigrate by issuing shares at market price. There goes money for airport.
Better system will expand much farther. A governor that govern the city well can create a franchise company. Other cities can compete for such governors like corporations compete for CEO.
Voters/shareholders choice will be easier. All they need to do is to ensure that the share prices and their dividend go up.