Have you considered that a very wealthy person might be able to essentially *buy* a country and try Futarchy? I was in Cuba last year - a living ongoing tragedy. Any conceivable change would be an improvement. Cuba has 11 million people. If you paid each $1000 to accept the change (assuming we could get a vote on it) that's $11B. Then paid the top 10,000 officials $1M each (another $10B), and the top 100 $10M each (another $10B), that's $31B. There are quite a few people who could afford that.
Small, poor, and messed up. The more messed up the better - you'll get less pushback from Western upholders of the status quo (imagine what the NYT will say!). If things are really bad, it's harder to protest against an attempt to improve them.
Of course - it's unprecedented. And the transition is sheer bribery.
First you need to find somebody with the money and interest. Then a likely country with a bribable power structure. Then convince the rulers that you're serious and will pay.
For the record - Clément and I ("Dave") had a private conversation about this - maybe others would be interested so I'm posting it here (lightly edited):
Clement: My idea was not to buy Cuba with money, but to get Bhashan for free: Google Doc proposal
It's smaller, but way more doable, probably requiring something between 100–200M$.
Dave: There's a larger problem. If you are at all serious about this I strongly suggest you read Erwin Strauss's How to Start Your Own Country (hard to find – a copy is here: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/295586124588). It's really a history of failed attempts. TLDR: You need a military to defend it. One strong enough to really cause the neighbors pain if push comes to shove. Unless you have a powerful nearby patron country, probably nukes. Otherwise you're wasting your time – somebody will come and take it from you.
Clement: That's only true if you have enemies or natural resources. That's not the case with Bhashan, and here both neighboring countries would have incentives for it to work.
Bangladesh not to have to deal with refugees, and Myanmar (both SAC and NUG) not to have them come back.
It'd be a Singapore-like situation, where a state gives independence to some territory to "get rid" of some population.
Dave: Read the book. A lot of people have thought that was the situation; it never seems to work out. Book was written in the 70s or 80s, but I don't think anything fundamental has changed. Unless it can defend itself, its independence lasts just until somebody decides they want to take it from you.
Clement: There are challenges, namely, how to develop a country with an initial population with limited education and almost no natural resources, but foreign invasion is way down the list of concerns.
And this can also be solved by some agreement with Bangladesh, a bit similar to Monaco–France.
Dave: Read also the 1st volume of Harry Lee's memoirs (https://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Story-Memoirs-Lee-Kuan/dp/0130208035) – what Singapore had to do to stay independent in the early days, including juggling Britain and Malaysia while getting fighter planes and hiring Israelis (in disguise as “Mexicans”) to train pilots. It was a close thing. And Harry Lee was a genius.
Clement: They had wealth (educated population, strategic location for ships and petrol).
Dave: The fundamental problem is that if you want to start a new country because you want to do things differently from all the existing countries – well there's a reason the kind of country you want doesn't already exist. Somebody doesn't want it to happen. They will cause you problems.
It's been tried a lot more times than you might think.
Clement: This is a pretty different situation. Which has different problems, but invasion wouldn't be a prominent one (even if at some point some dissuasion may be necessary).
I'm aware of a bunch of stuff, like Liberland, Isla de la Rosa, etc.
If you want to argue that someone would invade, you need to point out whom.
Dave: Usually it's somebody local. In your case, maybe Bangladesh. One faction might be happy with you, but eventually circumstances change or some other faction comes into power. If they wanted a neighboring country run your way, they'd set it up on their own. They haven't, usually because they don't.
Really – I'd love to see somebody succeed with this. By all means give it a try. But understand the challenge and make plans to deal with it.
Clement: Getting Bangladesh approval can be challenging. But if it were to get, then I see no country likely to invade.
Dave: What happens if Bangladesh changes their mind? They may not even need to invade – just create pressure on you to stop doing whatever it is they don't like. Then what's the point? I think it's possible but there are pitfalls you need to be aware of. They are difficult to overcome (but possible – Singapore did it). At least learn from what didn't work in the past.
Clement: They wouldn't "change their mind" that fast. In the short term, they couldn't do that politically as claiming a island full of Rohingya would lower their claim that Rohingya are not Bangladeshi (which is what is claimed by Myanmar).
In the long term, it does indeed need some defense or defense alliances.
Dave: I agree – it sounds like an opportunity. I wish you luck. Be pragmatic and try to make new mistakes instead of repeating old mistakes others have made. :-)
Clement: Don't worry I've read a bunch of stuff and see some challenges (getting Bangladesh approval, what if there is a flood, what if Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army tries to infiltrate and create a revolt on the island), but not a foreign country invasion.
Dave: Some other problems (aside from defense): Will the Rohingyas support what you're trying to do? Will some of them want to run the place their own way instead of your way? If wealthy investors put $ into the place, will Bangladesh get jealous the $ isn't going to them? One tempting way to build the country will be to permit stuff that's taboo elsewhere – drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. If you do that the neighbors won’t want you around tho. And even just succeeding in non-controversial ways makes the neighbors look bad by comparison. Politicians are sensitive about that. Good luck.
Clement: Prostitution is already legal in Bangladesh so shouldn't be an issue.
We'd obviously need local support with a referendum for the plan. Only after a successful local + Bangladesh approval, the project would start.
Clement: People would be allowed a general freedom of contracting, which would include submitting themselves to Charia law. They could therefore be prohibited from engaging in drugs (alcohol included), gambling as long as they opt in via Charia law. This could be something Singaporean style (with Muslim getting special laws for them).
The $ would have never gone to Bangladesh in the first place, and a lot of good would be bought from Bangladesh, probably creating spillover of wealth to the nearby cities (similar to Johor in Malaysia).
There could always be some way to find mutually beneficial agreements with Bangladesh, in a style similar to France–Monaco (i.e. cannot act as fiscal paradise for Bangladesh, nor allow them stuff like drugs and gambling).
Dave: Mind if I post this whole conversation on the Overcoming Bias thread? I think others might be interested.
Any concern that knowing a decision market is only advisory would result in systematically biased outcomes? It seems plausible (I don't have a strong intuition for whether it is likely) to me that knowing the market is advisory might lead to a psychological distancing in the minds of those betting in the market.
If so, might this result in an increased tendency for participants to take on a values-signaling mindset, rather than a decision-making mindset? Even if it did, as I say it I'm thinking that maybe that shift in mindset might actually be appropriate given the shift in role of the market. Dunno, just a thought
@astew There's money to lose from value-signalling, and money to gain from correcting-for-other-signallers. I'm guessing this would only be a potential issue if anonymity were forbidden
I think you are mixing it with play-money. Play money indeed has this signalling issue. But for real money market participants, whether or not the market is advisory has no impact on the motivation to price outcome correctly (actually, by making market advisory only, we reduce the risk that outcomes conditional on decisions with bad market outcomes be neglected because they are unlikely to be implemented).
Have you considered that a very wealthy person might be able to essentially *buy* a country and try Futarchy? I was in Cuba last year - a living ongoing tragedy. Any conceivable change would be an improvement. Cuba has 11 million people. If you paid each $1000 to accept the change (assuming we could get a vote on it) that's $11B. Then paid the top 10,000 officials $1M each (another $10B), and the top 100 $10M each (another $10B), that's $31B. There are quite a few people who could afford that.
Alas, no countries seem to be for sale.
There are countries even smaller. If you looked at the smallest end of the scale, there might be some takers.
Small, poor, and messed up. The more messed up the better - you'll get less pushback from Western upholders of the status quo (imagine what the NYT will say!). If things are really bad, it's harder to protest against an attempt to improve them.
And it'll be cheaper.
Of course - it's unprecedented. And the transition is sheer bribery.
First you need to find somebody with the money and interest. Then a likely country with a bribable power structure. Then convince the rulers that you're serious and will pay.
I would advise you to read The Network State: https://thenetworkstate.com/
On buying countries, there may not be countries nominally for sale, but it wouldn't be crazy to buy some territory to a sovereign nation.
Note that the cost may be non monetary. In this thought experiment, I was considering getting a small Island of Bangladesh in exchange of taking care of the local refugee population. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyJlRikh_9R-IDvgAFTq1rbtAg4iYV-ybwF-nHb-nTk/edit?tab=t.0
For the record - Clément and I ("Dave") had a private conversation about this - maybe others would be interested so I'm posting it here (lightly edited):
Clement: My idea was not to buy Cuba with money, but to get Bhashan for free: Google Doc proposal
It's smaller, but way more doable, probably requiring something between 100–200M$.
Dave: There's a larger problem. If you are at all serious about this I strongly suggest you read Erwin Strauss's How to Start Your Own Country (hard to find – a copy is here: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/295586124588). It's really a history of failed attempts. TLDR: You need a military to defend it. One strong enough to really cause the neighbors pain if push comes to shove. Unless you have a powerful nearby patron country, probably nukes. Otherwise you're wasting your time – somebody will come and take it from you.
Clement: That's only true if you have enemies or natural resources. That's not the case with Bhashan, and here both neighboring countries would have incentives for it to work.
Bangladesh not to have to deal with refugees, and Myanmar (both SAC and NUG) not to have them come back.
It'd be a Singapore-like situation, where a state gives independence to some territory to "get rid" of some population.
Dave: Read the book. A lot of people have thought that was the situation; it never seems to work out. Book was written in the 70s or 80s, but I don't think anything fundamental has changed. Unless it can defend itself, its independence lasts just until somebody decides they want to take it from you.
Clement: There are challenges, namely, how to develop a country with an initial population with limited education and almost no natural resources, but foreign invasion is way down the list of concerns.
And this can also be solved by some agreement with Bangladesh, a bit similar to Monaco–France.
Dave: Read also the 1st volume of Harry Lee's memoirs (https://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Story-Memoirs-Lee-Kuan/dp/0130208035) – what Singapore had to do to stay independent in the early days, including juggling Britain and Malaysia while getting fighter planes and hiring Israelis (in disguise as “Mexicans”) to train pilots. It was a close thing. And Harry Lee was a genius.
Clement: They had wealth (educated population, strategic location for ships and petrol).
Dave: The fundamental problem is that if you want to start a new country because you want to do things differently from all the existing countries – well there's a reason the kind of country you want doesn't already exist. Somebody doesn't want it to happen. They will cause you problems.
It's been tried a lot more times than you might think.
Clement: This is a pretty different situation. Which has different problems, but invasion wouldn't be a prominent one (even if at some point some dissuasion may be necessary).
I'm aware of a bunch of stuff, like Liberland, Isla de la Rosa, etc.
If you want to argue that someone would invade, you need to point out whom.
Dave: Usually it's somebody local. In your case, maybe Bangladesh. One faction might be happy with you, but eventually circumstances change or some other faction comes into power. If they wanted a neighboring country run your way, they'd set it up on their own. They haven't, usually because they don't.
Really – I'd love to see somebody succeed with this. By all means give it a try. But understand the challenge and make plans to deal with it.
Clement: Getting Bangladesh approval can be challenging. But if it were to get, then I see no country likely to invade.
Dave: What happens if Bangladesh changes their mind? They may not even need to invade – just create pressure on you to stop doing whatever it is they don't like. Then what's the point? I think it's possible but there are pitfalls you need to be aware of. They are difficult to overcome (but possible – Singapore did it). At least learn from what didn't work in the past.
Clement: They wouldn't "change their mind" that fast. In the short term, they couldn't do that politically as claiming a island full of Rohingya would lower their claim that Rohingya are not Bangladeshi (which is what is claimed by Myanmar).
In the long term, it does indeed need some defense or defense alliances.
Dave: I agree – it sounds like an opportunity. I wish you luck. Be pragmatic and try to make new mistakes instead of repeating old mistakes others have made. :-)
Clement: Don't worry I've read a bunch of stuff and see some challenges (getting Bangladesh approval, what if there is a flood, what if Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army tries to infiltrate and create a revolt on the island), but not a foreign country invasion.
Dave: Some other problems (aside from defense): Will the Rohingyas support what you're trying to do? Will some of them want to run the place their own way instead of your way? If wealthy investors put $ into the place, will Bangladesh get jealous the $ isn't going to them? One tempting way to build the country will be to permit stuff that's taboo elsewhere – drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. If you do that the neighbors won’t want you around tho. And even just succeeding in non-controversial ways makes the neighbors look bad by comparison. Politicians are sensitive about that. Good luck.
Clement: Prostitution is already legal in Bangladesh so shouldn't be an issue.
We'd obviously need local support with a referendum for the plan. Only after a successful local + Bangladesh approval, the project would start.
Clement: People would be allowed a general freedom of contracting, which would include submitting themselves to Charia law. They could therefore be prohibited from engaging in drugs (alcohol included), gambling as long as they opt in via Charia law. This could be something Singaporean style (with Muslim getting special laws for them).
The $ would have never gone to Bangladesh in the first place, and a lot of good would be bought from Bangladesh, probably creating spillover of wealth to the nearby cities (similar to Johor in Malaysia).
There could always be some way to find mutually beneficial agreements with Bangladesh, in a style similar to France–Monaco (i.e. cannot act as fiscal paradise for Bangladesh, nor allow them stuff like drugs and gambling).
Dave: Mind if I post this whole conversation on the Overcoming Bias thread? I think others might be interested.
Clement: Yeah, go on.
Any concern that knowing a decision market is only advisory would result in systematically biased outcomes? It seems plausible (I don't have a strong intuition for whether it is likely) to me that knowing the market is advisory might lead to a psychological distancing in the minds of those betting in the market.
If so, might this result in an increased tendency for participants to take on a values-signaling mindset, rather than a decision-making mindset? Even if it did, as I say it I'm thinking that maybe that shift in mindset might actually be appropriate given the shift in role of the market. Dunno, just a thought
They'd be betting on actual outcomes of an actual decision, nothing hypothetical about it.
@astew There's money to lose from value-signalling, and money to gain from correcting-for-other-signallers. I'm guessing this would only be a potential issue if anonymity were forbidden
I think you are mixing it with play-money. Play money indeed has this signalling issue. But for real money market participants, whether or not the market is advisory has no impact on the motivation to price outcome correctly (actually, by making market advisory only, we reduce the risk that outcomes conditional on decisions with bad market outcomes be neglected because they are unlikely to be implemented).