Why Turning Voters into Owners Can be a Very Good Idea

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 rethoric on normal democracy is then about what people believe rather than what’s real. In fact, religions play heavy roles in politic because it’s easier to win election by changing what people believe rather than proposing what actually works.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basuki_Tjahaja_Purnama#Post-imprisonment

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 tyrany and will lead to bigger problems.

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.

Problems solved.

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 need to buy shares at market price.

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.

In normal democracy, a share or a citizenship is granted for being born on the right place. On this one, a share can be inherited from parents or bought at market price. If the price is already too high, the kid can just move to poorer regions and try to get rich there. Not a bad deal.

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.

We can have less poverty with less government

Imagine our fuhrer come and says, we will have the best smartphones. How? I will decide what’s best and exterminate the rest. Then I will use governments money to buy the best.

You know that’s crazy right. Political leaders have little incentive to pick the best smartphones. Customers are best for doing that. That’s a terrible idea.
The stupidity on the idea is not on we want the best smartphones. There is nothing wrong with wanting better smartphones.

The stupidity of the idea is in who are deciding which smartphones are best.

The government or customers.

Imagine if the opposition party says, that’s a terrible idea. Why? Well, all smartphones are created equal and endowed by their factories with a certain inalienable right. Such as the right to have a certain market share.
We shouldn’t exterminate bad smartphone. To the opposite, we should subsidize it.

See this Nokia cellphone? People are not buying it. So we should give subsidy to those who buy it. See, this Xiaomi smart phone? The buyers of such phones must be smart, so we can tax or fine Xiaomi phones to subsidizes black berry that can’t even play Clash Royale.

That would be an even more stupid idea.

The same with eugenicism. Yes, the Nazi (as well as US) used to practice that to horrible effect. However, the issue is not the idea that we want to improve our genes. There is nothing wrong with that idea.

What’s wrong is the idea that the government decides which people are exterminated and which ones reproduces.

However, presuming that all humans are equal, taking money from those that serve others and giving it to majestic parasitic overlords is an even worse idea.

Instead, we should let the market decides who survives in the gene pool.
We should stop subsidizing single mothers or poor parents. We should stop penalizing richer men with exorbitant child support. Instead, we should let the market decides the fair therm of their relationship.

Perhaps, like in other area of life, we can regulate a certain minimum standard. For example, say a child can have $10k per year living cost. We can arrange that anyone that want to have children must be able to afford $10k per year irrelevant of wealth.

So a billionaire and a poor welfare parasite will both have to earn $10k per year per child before breeding another child.

Let the market take care the rest. See how many children have richer dad within, say 2 years?

Immigrants Wanting to Come to Your Country Should be Profitable to You

If too many customers want to come to your shop, you should serve as many as you can profitably do.

If you can’t handle too many customers, you should raise the price or demand them to pay entry tickets.

If still too many want to come in you should open branches in many other places. Subsidiary is better actually. Expand expand expand. Kaching.

If that’s not enough, you should franchise your system so others can try, use your brand, and your system, and you collect money while helping doing the management. This may sound selfish and “greedy”. But this is how capitalists serve higher quality more delicious burgers through all four corners of the world.

You help more people through this selfish behavior than through any altruism. The latter can’t even be scaled up. If too many people want to immigrate to your country, you should think like shop owners.☺️

Instead of bringing mexican to US or bringing middle easterns to europe, why not make mexico a franchisee of US and make middle east a subsidiary of europe?

If you do so well, you may not even need to bomb countries to adopt your system. They’ll ask to change themselves.

Our World is Ideal

Under normal democracy, the government has to make everyone happy and accommodate everyone. That’s impossible.

We should have different localized governments, each trying to make their niche happy. Tax payers and residences should then move to their niche where they are happiest.

Libertarians can live in a libertarian country. Minarchist can go to their country. Socialists too can move to their socialist country.

Even racists can move to their country. They will be happier there and we will be happier if they’re gone. Then, and only then, everyone will be happy.

We just need to make sure that each country is not parasitic toward one another. Don’t export poverty to another country and don’t demand more money than their fair share.

Wait a minute… We’re already there. Our planet is divided into 165 countries. With the exception of North Korea, most do not require an exit visa.

Our world is already ideal.

Want even more ideal? Extend similar principle to provinces, cities, and states.

Why not make the deal even sweeter for those who still aren’t happy. Pay them to leave. Make everyone that wants to come in pays for that. Those who leave get paid, those who want in pay. Make the price the same. So anyone want to come in buys citizenship from the one wanting to get out.

Imagine someone willing to pay a fair market price to live in your country. You will never have to worry if he is sharing your value. Of course, he does. He is willing to pay for that. He values your value and that’s exactly why he’s willing to sell citizenship of his country so he can live among you.

I am a libertarian with exceptions

I am a libertarian. However, if states have a profit incentive and have to compete, I do not think statism as necessarily evil.

I am a capitalist. However, if some socialism does not punish the productive through income tax, does not reward parasites with welfare, I do not think that kind of socialism as necessarily evil.

In fact, if redistribution of wealth provide an incentive for voters to be otherwise capitalistic, that’s a good idea. For example, I think I support ganja tax. If ganja is taxed and the money is distributed to voters, it’ll provide incentive for voters to legalize all harmless drugs.

I think Henry George’s idea of taxing mainly land and give UBI is the kind of socialism I can stomach. The land value reflects good government anyway. Good secure governments will increase land value. Good infrastructure will increase land value. So it makes much more sense to tax land instead of income.

There is a strong link between what the people vote for, what their government do, and land value. I also don’t believe all taxation is theft. If anything, peguvian taxes make the world more fair. Vice taxes can also make the world more libertarian.

Why Pure Voluntarism Won’t Work

The problem with “pure” voluntaryism is while you don’t want to push others’ around doesn’t mean that others will honor your NAP commitment.

If you’re weak, you’ll be pushed around. If you want to be strong, you need allies. Many of your allies will not be libertarians. Which means that your allies will demand stuff from you and other people non consensually. Better others right?

Which is why redistribution of wealth will never be 0 under democracy. Some want less redistribution of wealth, some want more. There will be an equilibrium where both party settles somewhere in the middle by midean vote theorem.

And you can’t get rid democracy. Democracy simply “acknowledge” inherent power in numbers. Even without democracy, people can get what they want by say, murdering cartoonists or looting. With democracy, at least they express their statist agenda through voting, which is less costly.

There is no such thing as pure things on any ideology. Often, there are variables, that people just ignore that prevent their ideology from ever being true or pure.

But we can get closer and closer to libertarian-ism, even under democracy.

Laws of Power

Law of powers

  1. Humans are selfish and greedy.
  2. Good things tend to come to those who are in power. That’s how we define power, ability to get what you want. Sample: Suharto making tons of money when he was in power. Welfare in a democracy where a large number of people can vote.
  3. Good things come to those who are in power roughly proportionally to the relative power. For example, each share in a corporation has one voting power. Each share tends to get the same dividend. Monogamy is more common in democratic countries. Democracy also increases minimum wage and welfare program. Non democratic nations like Qatar practices polygamy and prohibit sex outside marriage.
  4. When people are in power, they use their power to get what they want. Usually, something selfish, like money, women, or more power.
  5. Rights come from power. You only have right, if you are in power or someone in power wants you to have that right. For example, the right to live is far less meaningful in dark alley. That’s because the cops and bystanders that want you to have a right to live is powerless there. One of the reasons why we have world peace is because war is like robbing people in crowded places.
  6. Knowledge is power. That includes what you know, and who you know.
  7. The simpler the rules the more benefit to the people. The more complex the rules the more benefit to politicians and lobbyists. For example, which one is more beneficial for people? UBI or universal healthcare. I’ll bet my ass that UBI benefits citizens while universal healthcare will benefit lobbyist. Universal healthcare is complex. How do you decide whether the money should be spent on sex-change therapy or orthodontic treatment? Those lobbyists know the rules way more than typical voters. Universal healthcare is complex. Which one will benefit citizens more? Simple rule entry for immigrant (anyone paying $xxx get a visa), or vetting for each immigrant? The simple rules are better. Capitalism has simple rules of thumb, don’t force, don’t defraud. It’s much harder to bribe politicians in capitalist countries. In general, in order of benefit, laizes faihre capitalism tend to be better than a tariff that tends to be better than licensing.
  8. Profit incentive and competition among profit-seeking entities are the best, most reliable ways to get things done correctly. If you give FDA power to issue drug licensing, you should ask a question. What incentive does FDA have in giving licenses properly? Imagine if 2 drugs are identical and made by the same factory. Why should FDA approve both consistently? Pharma makes more money if the one produced in other countries don’t get licensing. If anything, lobbyist will lobby for higher drug prices so they can split the profit with pharma. Give FDA private competition and let the customer choose among private certification and prices of drugs will drop.
  9. Healthcare is more expensive in US due to lobbying and effective corruption. That corruption happens due to big government involvement in healthcare. That government involvement is voted for due to socialism. Yes, it’s not exactly “true socialism”. There is no such thing is true socialism because socialism can’t be true. Humans are too selfish to be socialists. The same way there is no true libertarianism, true capitalism, or stuff. In general, the more power the government have, the more expensive healthcare will be because the money will go to lobbyists.

Politic in a nutshell

https://9gag.com/gag/aOYX8zE

WoW in a nutshell.

Politic in a nutshell. I used to think democracy is bad because it produces socialism.

Then I think socialism is bad because it produces crony capitalism.

Then I thought crony capitalism is bad because it produces inefficiency. Then… then…. then… Well….

Not that doesn’t quite fit in.

More like crony capitalism is bad. However, that happens due to stupid rules made by stupid people.

Those rules happen due to socialism and religions. So, socialism and religions are the real bad guy.

However, socialism and religion are often critical in buying votes from the poor. So democracy is the real bad guy.

But democracy is necessary to prevent civil war and to provide an incentive for the population to support the state. So the state is the real bad guy.

But the state is the only thing between me and terrorists and north korea. So they’re the real bad guys.

I am confused.

Anyway, the moral of WOW is we kill people and grab whatever they’re dropping. I guess we’re the bad guys ha?