Centuries ago, most commerce and production was organized around individuals and small groups. Since then, we’ve seen enormous innovation in business forms and structures. Today, such forms are much larger and more complex, and they do most everything of importance in our world.
It is true that while a government might have a monopoly locally, there is still competition between governments. A problem there is that such competition is a slow process - leaving the door open for governments to enslave and exploit their citizens in the mean time. To avoid going off the rails at the hands of a greedy dictator, many countries have within-government competition - with rival political parties. Part of the idea is to limit the scale and duration of the monopoly power of the government - and so avoid negative evolutionary trajectories and bloody revolutions. As Robin notes, many people hate the idea of a monopolist ruling party exploiting them as much as possible in order to to enrich themselves. If the hatred of the population is too high, then there's a revolution and a new political system is installed.
As outlined in an old comment I made, you do it by requiring gov officials to be invested into an asset class (Stateshares) sufficiently enough for an official to care more about that asset class rather than accruing other capital like income, bribes, laziness (rent-seeking), etc.
You can search for Contingentative Capitocracy for more details.
I like the idea, and the low but realistic taxes & regulations, even the push for hiring Hondurans on the island - but WHO are the people making decisions? How are they paid? What is the business/ gov't plan? What do we get for (not so easy to find cost of) $130?It's true that folk don't like the idea of a for-profit gov't with a monopoly on force - so one aspect should be what is the explicit social.Where are links to some of the "bad press"?Are you, Robin, doing any business there (like publishing an e-book or anything)? Lots of us are interested.
Your last paragraph gets to the point. Since private companies are likely to fail at the same time in the same way, governments can provide a backstop and bail them out.
That doesn't seem like a great analogy. A business can uproot itself and move downtown if it finds a better location there. However, a government can't go and occupy western China if it thinks it would do better there. The difference could be described in terms of governments having more geographic inertia. Governments can't easily move around. All the other territories are already occupied. Attempting to move to another location is generally viewed as a hostile military act and opposed by international law.
Most firms who have a physical location have "monopoly" property rights over that location. Even so, they compete with other locations. Same would be true of for-profit nations.
Corporations work as well as they do partly because they are prevented from becoming monopolies that face no competition - and can then behave badly without fear of negative consequences. With governments, it is not clear how this "anti-trust" role would be played. It seems as though they would have a monopoly. Then the issue is how to make sure they don't abuse this role. For example, one approach is to time-limit the monopoly power and then have regular reviews to see if people think the government needs to be replaced or overhauled. Corporations typically don't face this issue, since if they get too big and powerful, the government breaks them up.
Efficiency of government is one thing, but isn't aligning government with the interests of the public the main concern here? How would that alignment be built into such a scheme?
When the FDA deregulates things, they don't become more dangerous but instead safer:https://marginalrevolution....
Wealth inequality is not a "market failure". I conclude you don't know what a market failure is.
I already linked to Caplan earlier on information asymmetry, which the government doesn't help by forbidding companies from taking into account what actuarial information they have on their customers. "Insider trading" laws are not based on economic reasoning but instead an intuitive notion of "fairness" misapplied to speculative markets where insider info would actually give rise to more accurate prices.
I will grant that pollution constitutes a negative externality. The efficient response to this is Pigovian taxation of such negative externalities, but those are unpopular so the government instead uses regulation to cause deadweight loss without deriving any tax revenue, along with subsidies (Pigovian taxes would encourage both less polluting approaches as well as more efficiency via avoiding polluting processes in the first place).
The free-rider problem for public goods can be solved by dominant assurance contracts. But most of what the government spends money on are not actual public goods but instead things that people value at less than cost.
Govt responses aren't perfect though without any regulation, more people would die from bad vaccines/medicines/medical procedures. That regulatory approval was put in place to benefit people and it does that job. If the vaccine was taken early before the quick phase 3 trials, there would've been a lot more skepticism and lot more ineffective and harmful vaccines being taken.
Common market failures are monopolies which anti-trust regulations help solve. Information asymmetry which insider trading laws solve. Wealth inequality which taxes and redistribution solve. Pollution and other negative externalities which environmental regulations solve. Tragedy of the commons and the free-rider problem which govt taxation solves.
All through Africa are "countries" where the government has failed, unless you consider warlords with 12 year old soldiers a government. Not only is there no flourishing of productive business in these places without rules, but I think the warlords and their 12 year old soldiers ARE the "businesses" that arise naturally in the absence of a government. It seems ludicrous to me to suggest businesses in the west exist in any way separate from the rule of law, fiat money, and constraints against violence and theft as allowed competitive techniques.
Why are the largest richest businesses all in the western countries with their incredibly powerful governments and restrictive regulations? Is that some wierd coincidence?
It is true that while a government might have a monopoly locally, there is still competition between governments. A problem there is that such competition is a slow process - leaving the door open for governments to enslave and exploit their citizens in the mean time. To avoid going off the rails at the hands of a greedy dictator, many countries have within-government competition - with rival political parties. Part of the idea is to limit the scale and duration of the monopoly power of the government - and so avoid negative evolutionary trajectories and bloody revolutions. As Robin notes, many people hate the idea of a monopolist ruling party exploiting them as much as possible in order to to enrich themselves. If the hatred of the population is too high, then there's a revolution and a new political system is installed.
He was saying customers can move around.
As outlined in an old comment I made, you do it by requiring gov officials to be invested into an asset class (Stateshares) sufficiently enough for an official to care more about that asset class rather than accruing other capital like income, bribes, laziness (rent-seeking), etc.
You can search for Contingentative Capitocracy for more details.
I like the idea, and the low but realistic taxes & regulations, even the push for hiring Hondurans on the island - but WHO are the people making decisions? How are they paid? What is the business/ gov't plan? What do we get for (not so easy to find cost of) $130?It's true that folk don't like the idea of a for-profit gov't with a monopoly on force - so one aspect should be what is the explicit social.Where are links to some of the "bad press"?Are you, Robin, doing any business there (like publishing an e-book or anything)? Lots of us are interested.
"Businesses can take over the role of government" is typical ancap propaganda, not obviously confirmed by deeper analysis.
Your last paragraph gets to the point. Since private companies are likely to fail at the same time in the same way, governments can provide a backstop and bail them out.
GDP per capita growth in India under the EIC was very poor. Its rule finally ended with a revolt.
That doesn't seem like a great analogy. A business can uproot itself and move downtown if it finds a better location there. However, a government can't go and occupy western China if it thinks it would do better there. The difference could be described in terms of governments having more geographic inertia. Governments can't easily move around. All the other territories are already occupied. Attempting to move to another location is generally viewed as a hostile military act and opposed by international law.
Most firms who have a physical location have "monopoly" property rights over that location. Even so, they compete with other locations. Same would be true of for-profit nations.
Corporations work as well as they do partly because they are prevented from becoming monopolies that face no competition - and can then behave badly without fear of negative consequences. With governments, it is not clear how this "anti-trust" role would be played. It seems as though they would have a monopoly. Then the issue is how to make sure they don't abuse this role. For example, one approach is to time-limit the monopoly power and then have regular reviews to see if people think the government needs to be replaced or overhauled. Corporations typically don't face this issue, since if they get too big and powerful, the government breaks them up.
Efficiency of government is one thing, but isn't aligning government with the interests of the public the main concern here? How would that alignment be built into such a scheme?
How many people die from vaccines?
When the FDA deregulates things, they don't become more dangerous but instead safer:https://marginalrevolution....
Wealth inequality is not a "market failure". I conclude you don't know what a market failure is.
I already linked to Caplan earlier on information asymmetry, which the government doesn't help by forbidding companies from taking into account what actuarial information they have on their customers. "Insider trading" laws are not based on economic reasoning but instead an intuitive notion of "fairness" misapplied to speculative markets where insider info would actually give rise to more accurate prices.
I will grant that pollution constitutes a negative externality. The efficient response to this is Pigovian taxation of such negative externalities, but those are unpopular so the government instead uses regulation to cause deadweight loss without deriving any tax revenue, along with subsidies (Pigovian taxes would encourage both less polluting approaches as well as more efficiency via avoiding polluting processes in the first place).
The free-rider problem for public goods can be solved by dominant assurance contracts. But most of what the government spends money on are not actual public goods but instead things that people value at less than cost.
Govt responses aren't perfect though without any regulation, more people would die from bad vaccines/medicines/medical procedures. That regulatory approval was put in place to benefit people and it does that job. If the vaccine was taken early before the quick phase 3 trials, there would've been a lot more skepticism and lot more ineffective and harmful vaccines being taken.
Common market failures are monopolies which anti-trust regulations help solve. Information asymmetry which insider trading laws solve. Wealth inequality which taxes and redistribution solve. Pollution and other negative externalities which environmental regulations solve. Tragedy of the commons and the free-rider problem which govt taxation solves.
All through Africa are "countries" where the government has failed, unless you consider warlords with 12 year old soldiers a government. Not only is there no flourishing of productive business in these places without rules, but I think the warlords and their 12 year old soldiers ARE the "businesses" that arise naturally in the absence of a government. It seems ludicrous to me to suggest businesses in the west exist in any way separate from the rule of law, fiat money, and constraints against violence and theft as allowed competitive techniques.
Why are the largest richest businesses all in the western countries with their incredibly powerful governments and restrictive regulations? Is that some wierd coincidence?
They had billions of years before governments existed to prove they could exist without government.
They aren't given a chance to prove that they don't need the govt to do those things.