Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Should mini states have owners?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 Send TopicPrint
Normal Topic Should mini states have owners? (Read 46 times)
genepool
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 800
Joined: Dec 19th, 2014
Should mini states have owners?
Nov 7th, 2018 at 7:19pm
Print Post  
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/should-state-or-provinces-or-countries-hav...

Imagine a desolate poor sparsely populated region.

An investor comes to those people and say, I'll buy your country. I invest $1 billion dollar. You got a share. I control 90% of the share. Now we probably have rules that ensure that the population will not just be slaughtered or enslaved. However, I think making the deal "win win" with original native inhabitants wouldn't be difficult.

Now after investor build that country, the investor can legalize weed, drugs, prostitution, and make a libertarian hedonist cruize. Bringing profit to the people.

The country can also go IPO. Getting more investor.

Native inhabitants that don't like it can just sell their share and move somewhere else. Most will like it though and see their stock price going up and up getting dividend.

Those mini states do not have to worry about problems so many states have. Creating jobs? Well, all citizen are shareholders that got dividend. Immigrants are tourists. Want to be citizen? Oh you mean share holders? Yea you buy stocks. Duh....

What jobs to create?

What about rent seeking? In normal states it's a problem. Say someone told the states, give me money and I will benefit the people. Well, which people? There are many voting blocs each having different interests.

Now rent seeking is like private rent seeking. The investor have spent so much on infrastructure and security in that state. So they have a right to get rent seeking. Anyone wants to sell something just apply for license that profit investors.

A state can make certain people happy than making everyone's happy.

Say you live in a democratic country. 50% of the population is muslim. 50% of the population is secular. What's going to happen is some compromise. Oh we have a half secular country.

When states have ownership, this problem can easily solved. Create 2 mini states. One completely secular and another can be whatever. Immigrants are like customers. They go to where they like.

It also address many libertarian issues. Should the state build infrastructure? Well, why not let the CEO decides.

A state may build infrastructure if and only if the land price (now owned by the state, but private parties can have usufructus right). The land in the state can considered as "assets" for the state.

Should weed be legal? The state may decide this not based on complex "social cost". Like any companies, the state can simply compute the extra revenue and tourists that come when weed is taxed.

Should the state requires licenses for liquor? For most states, the libertarian answer is no. However, for private ministates owned by investor? No problem. You don't like it you can just not immigrate there.

Unlike hereditary monarchy, the rulers, which can be called CEO or president or whatever will always be competent selected by shareholders.

Just hire smart politician like the one governing qatar, singapore, hong kong, and dubai and we got something going.

While technically states are not "owned" by anyone, most states are run like corporation.

Imagine if a president use his power to enrich himself. We call that corruption. Imagine if some voting blocks uses their voting power to get subsidies or healthcare. We don't call that corruption. We call that serving the people's interests. It's as if the people are owners of the state and the president is agent.

Also look at most benefits for citizens in a state like US

1. If you don't work you get unemployment benefit
2. If you work you get paid more than if you do the same work in poor countries. That's because your government protect you from competition overseas. Those who works pay income taxes.
3. Ethnic groups that are not getting jobs are benefited by affirmative actions.


Yes. US government do not technically give citizenship dividend. However, those 3 things look like they're giving the same money to each citizen. It's as if the benefits are roughly equal for each citizen. When one gets more than the other, the other vote against it.

It seems that the 3 main ways US government benefit their citizens is just a complex way to give dividend to shareholders.

So why not experiment all the way. Create a mini state with owners in say Afganistan. US still handles security and of course got share of that mini state.

See how it goes.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7893
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Should mini states have owners?
Reply #1 - Nov 8th, 2018 at 12:21am
Print Post  
genepool wrote on Nov 7th, 2018 at 7:19pm:
Also look at most benefits for citizens in a state like US

1. If you don't work you get unemployment benefit
2. If you work you get paid more than if you do the same work in poor countries. That's because your government protect you from competition overseas. Those who works pay income taxes.
3. Ethnic groups that are not getting jobs are benefited by affirmative actions.

It seems that the 3 main ways US government benefit their citizens is just a complex way to give dividend to shareholders.

There's nothing complex about it, gene.

The government takes the earnings (wealth) from productive people and redistributes that wealth to those who are not.

What could be simpler?   

"Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life." - Ron Paul
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35513
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Should mini states have owners?
Reply #2 - Nov 8th, 2018 at 8:12am
Print Post  
Quote:
1. If you don't work you get unemployment benefit
2. If you work you get paid more than if you do the same work in poor countries. That's because your government protect you from competition overseas. Those who works pay income taxes.
3. Ethnic groups that are not getting jobs are benefited by affirmative actions.


1. You only get unemployment benefits if you've been working.

2. You might earn more money in the U.S. because free markets ("capitalism") have created a modern industrial economy, a sophisticated technology economy, an innovative service economy, and a responsive financial sector (at least we had one before the Fed took it over).

3. This sounds racist. Because it is. Our government practices racism through affirmative action.

BTW, the Tsar of All the Russia's was an owner of a state, he even owned the people! Cry

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Should mini states have owners?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy