Great care needs to be taken in designing the govlet system so that multiple govlets can compete on a fair ground. We want to protect the citizens' freedom to change their govlet affiliations, however that doesn't mean that there should be no restrictions or penalties.
Let's consider two govlets: govlet A has higher tax rates, and offers excellent social services such as education, retirement and health care etc; while govlet B collects no taxes and offers no services. Both govlets could be successful in isolation, however when putting them in direct competition, govlet A is no longer viable if there is no restriction on citizens' mobility between govlets. Someone can easily take advantage of the competition by staying with govlet A for its education benefits during school age; then switching to govlet B in his working years to avoid paying taxes; then switching back to govlet A for better retirement and health care benefits; then finally switching back to govlet B right before death to avoid estate tax. You can see that he is getting the better end of the deal from both govlets and let others foot the bill.
It is clear that without restricting the citizen's mobility between govlets, the competition among govlets would quickly create a race to the bottom situation and force all of them to adopt the same no tax/no service policies, which defeats the original purpose of preserving the political freedom. Freedom does not exist if there is nothing to choose from. The real question is therefore who should be responsible for designing and enforcing the constraints. Federal government is not a good option because it would inevitably offer a one-size-fit-all solution, that will benefit some but hurt other govlets, i.e, rob Peter to pay Paul. The fairest choice is for each govlet to legislate and enforce its own citizen's exit conditions and constraints. Such conditions and constraints would have to be agreed by the citizen when they join the govlet. Similar practices are already common in private sectors, where a company often offers upfront incentives to attract customers but with hefty early termination penalties attached. The cell phone carrier's package plan is a typical example of such an arrangement.
Govlet could model the exit restrictions after cell phone carrier's early termination penalties. In the example above, govlet A could force citizens to given up 20% of their total assets at exit either as an early termination penalty or as an estate tax. Sounds harsh, but it is still not quite fair because the earning power grows much faster at later years of an individual's career, thus if a citizen choose to exit govlet A right after he/she graduates college, then there is very little assets for the govlet to claim. A fairer penalty would be a percentage of their future income for certain years, in exchange for the social benefits already received. The actual percentage and the duration can dependent on the duration of benefits received, and the cumulative taxes the citizen already paid. Whether to enforce exit penalty, and in what from and amount are critical decisions that a govlet must choose carefully to match its own economic policies.
The exit penalty may sound coercive but it is not, a perspective citizen must agree to the govlet's exit penalty policies before he can join the govlet, therefore it is coercion-with-your-own-prior-consent. Every govlet should clearly declare their exit conditions in the constitution so that everyone is clear of the deal they are getting into before joining the govlet. The exit penalty is not an attractive feature for a govlet, therefore every govlet has the incentive to minimize the exit penalty in order to attract more citizens. Through competition, we have reasons to believe that the exit penalty will quickly reach equilibrium, which is the right amount to deter enough people from exploiting and abusing the political freedom, and protecting the livelihood of the govlet system.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
3. Governments with no boundaries
In America, a state government is almost a sovereign except that it transferred some of its power to the federal government, such as defense, international relationship and money supply. The state governments do compete with each other for citizens; but the high cost of relocation often deters people from moving. In order to create real competitions among state governments, people must have the freedom to form new state level governments, and people anywhere in the country must be able to freely choose and change their state level government affiliations. How to achieve these goals?
A traditional government always has a well defined geographical territory for it to exercise the jurisdiction. Before modern times, the society was less mobile and most people stayed with the same community for their whole life, therefore a geographical territory and people within naturally formed the unit for governing. The conflicts and wars in old times were mostly about fighting for the control of territory and people. Through wars, conflicts and changes of control, a government's territory usually settled along natural geographical borders, such as rivers and mountains, where it is the most effective to organize defense and border control. Physical proximity also minimized the costs for vital government services and functions, such as election, taxation, law enforcement, education, road construction etc. Therefore, a well defined territory has always been the optimal and most economic form of governing, until today.
With today's highly advanced transportation and communication network, I argue that a government no longer needs a well defined territorial boarder; furthermore, a physical boundary could be a limitation for governing. In modern times, we have brought down the borders in all aspects of our lives through the highly advanced and interconnected transportation and communication networks, and as a result people's life have become much richer and productive than previous generations. Most of the government's functions that used to require physical proximity, such as the election, taxation, legislation sessions and court hearings, can now be conducted effectively using modern technologies, such as video conferences, digital identifications and electronic voting. Government services that can't be provided electronically, such as law enforcement, education and health care can be organized centrally and provided through local contractors and vendors, which are paid directly by the governments or through government issued vouchers. The construction and maintenance of public infrastructure can be organized as public traded companies funded by multiple co-operating governments. The private sectors have long developed effective mechanism to provide services to customers all over the world, and the method to pool resources together to undertake huge projects. There is no fundamental reason why any of the main government services are so different that they can't be provided effectively without the geographical borders. The only government function that absolutely requires a geographical border is to keep other governments out, in order to maintain the monopoly power.
The fundamental idea of the new form of governing is to use modern technology to facilitate the free association of people with similar political ideologies, regardless of their physical locations. Once organized, people with similar political beliefs may form their own governments that are not limited by any geographical territories. We refer these borderless government as govlet. The jurisdiction of a govlet is limited to its own affiliating citizens; any citizen in the United States can freely choose and declare his/her govlet affiliations. A govlet has similar powers as our current state governments, it can write and enact its own constitution and legislation and enforce it among their own citizens through its legal system and police forces. A govlet is essentially a governing by consent body, which avoids the "tyranny of the majority" which has been pervasive throughout the history of the territory based democracy.
Since the govlets are founded by people with similar political ideologies, they will adopt the best policies to implement and advance their political beliefs. Of course nothing prevents people with conflicting political beliefs to form a govlet, but it is unclear why people would want to seek constant and endless confrontations that have crippled our current governments. Under such a system, it is expected that some govlets will have high taxes and good public services; some will have low taxes and poor public services; others will be somewhere in between. The govlet with high taxes and poor public services will lose its citizens to other govlets and will eventually go out of the governing business. Under this new form of government, every person in the country can freely choose his/her govlet affiliation without physically moving, which creates fierce and direct competitions among govlets. Each govlet has to improve its efficiency in order to survive and grow its citizen base, which will inevitably lead to lower taxes and better services for all.
In this new government form, various special interests groups will most likely form their own govlets to advance their special agenda, which is perfectly okay and even welcome. Indeed, every govlet is formed to pursue the special interests of its affiliating citizens, thus every govlet is a special interest group. This system will keep the politics and politician honest, in contrast to our current government where every special interest is pursued in the name of public good. The public good is best served when everyone's freedom to pursue his/her own special interests is protected.
There is every reason to believe that such a competitive free market approach for governing would be much more efficient than our current one-size-fit-all government monopoly. This new form of competing governments is also morally superior because it offers every citizen the political freedom to practice what he or she believes, without resorting to any coercion.
In the upcoming blogs, I will consider many important issues around the govlets, such as the resolution of jurisdiction, implications of changing govlet affiliations, contract enforcement, and the prevention of segregation and criminal govlets etc.
A traditional government always has a well defined geographical territory for it to exercise the jurisdiction. Before modern times, the society was less mobile and most people stayed with the same community for their whole life, therefore a geographical territory and people within naturally formed the unit for governing. The conflicts and wars in old times were mostly about fighting for the control of territory and people. Through wars, conflicts and changes of control, a government's territory usually settled along natural geographical borders, such as rivers and mountains, where it is the most effective to organize defense and border control. Physical proximity also minimized the costs for vital government services and functions, such as election, taxation, law enforcement, education, road construction etc. Therefore, a well defined territory has always been the optimal and most economic form of governing, until today.
With today's highly advanced transportation and communication network, I argue that a government no longer needs a well defined territorial boarder; furthermore, a physical boundary could be a limitation for governing. In modern times, we have brought down the borders in all aspects of our lives through the highly advanced and interconnected transportation and communication networks, and as a result people's life have become much richer and productive than previous generations. Most of the government's functions that used to require physical proximity, such as the election, taxation, legislation sessions and court hearings, can now be conducted effectively using modern technologies, such as video conferences, digital identifications and electronic voting. Government services that can't be provided electronically, such as law enforcement, education and health care can be organized centrally and provided through local contractors and vendors, which are paid directly by the governments or through government issued vouchers. The construction and maintenance of public infrastructure can be organized as public traded companies funded by multiple co-operating governments. The private sectors have long developed effective mechanism to provide services to customers all over the world, and the method to pool resources together to undertake huge projects. There is no fundamental reason why any of the main government services are so different that they can't be provided effectively without the geographical borders. The only government function that absolutely requires a geographical border is to keep other governments out, in order to maintain the monopoly power.
The fundamental idea of the new form of governing is to use modern technology to facilitate the free association of people with similar political ideologies, regardless of their physical locations. Once organized, people with similar political beliefs may form their own governments that are not limited by any geographical territories. We refer these borderless government as govlet. The jurisdiction of a govlet is limited to its own affiliating citizens; any citizen in the United States can freely choose and declare his/her govlet affiliations. A govlet has similar powers as our current state governments, it can write and enact its own constitution and legislation and enforce it among their own citizens through its legal system and police forces. A govlet is essentially a governing by consent body, which avoids the "tyranny of the majority" which has been pervasive throughout the history of the territory based democracy.
Since the govlets are founded by people with similar political ideologies, they will adopt the best policies to implement and advance their political beliefs. Of course nothing prevents people with conflicting political beliefs to form a govlet, but it is unclear why people would want to seek constant and endless confrontations that have crippled our current governments. Under such a system, it is expected that some govlets will have high taxes and good public services; some will have low taxes and poor public services; others will be somewhere in between. The govlet with high taxes and poor public services will lose its citizens to other govlets and will eventually go out of the governing business. Under this new form of government, every person in the country can freely choose his/her govlet affiliation without physically moving, which creates fierce and direct competitions among govlets. Each govlet has to improve its efficiency in order to survive and grow its citizen base, which will inevitably lead to lower taxes and better services for all.
In this new government form, various special interests groups will most likely form their own govlets to advance their special agenda, which is perfectly okay and even welcome. Indeed, every govlet is formed to pursue the special interests of its affiliating citizens, thus every govlet is a special interest group. This system will keep the politics and politician honest, in contrast to our current government where every special interest is pursued in the name of public good. The public good is best served when everyone's freedom to pursue his/her own special interests is protected.
There is every reason to believe that such a competitive free market approach for governing would be much more efficient than our current one-size-fit-all government monopoly. This new form of competing governments is also morally superior because it offers every citizen the political freedom to practice what he or she believes, without resorting to any coercion.
In the upcoming blogs, I will consider many important issues around the govlets, such as the resolution of jurisdiction, implications of changing govlet affiliations, contract enforcement, and the prevention of segregation and criminal govlets etc.
Friday, June 28, 2013
2. When truth is personal, treat it as religion
The truth is universal in natural sciences. Scientists rarely debate their theories, instead they test the theories using objective observations and experiments, and settle with the one that best explains the reality. Politics is about people's behavior, which is by definition subjective, therefore there is neither universal truth nor objective ways to test political theories.
To illustrate this point, let's consider how to objectively evaluate Republican's policies against Democrats' policies. One might reasonably propose the following: Find two nearly identical cities, and let the Republicans and the Democrats each run one of them for 30 years, then we should be able to compare the final results and tell which party's policy is superior, right? Not quite. Before declaring winners, one must first define the criteria for success. Is success defined by the wealth, equality, people's happiness or less pollution? Even if we only look at a single measure, for example, the average income, it is still difficult to attribute the success to the ruling party's policy. For example, it may so happen that the economic success of a city is mostly due to random or external events, e.g., the next tech genius like Zuckerberg happens to be born there. Even if we could control and adjust all these random or external factors, the truth is still murky, for example a city's economic success might be driven by legalized gambling and prostitution. Is that still a success?
However, each individual would have a clear preference on which city he or she wants to live given the difference in policies and the corresponding results. If citizens can move freely between the two cities, most of them would be happy living in the city of their choice. Just like in religion, the truth in politics is personal, not universal. Paul's heaven can be Peter's hell. Therefore debating politics is like debating religion, the universal truth never comes out (unless one of the gods reveals itself in a dramatic manner) and it serves no useful purposes other than the entertainment values.
In religion, people have long accepted that the truth is personal, and the only practical approach is to respect each other's beliefs and ensure that everyone can freely practice the religion of his own choice. Trying to enforce a single religion or belief system to all the people always ended up with disastrous results in the known human history. Today, most countries protect people's religious freedom, and people of different religions can live peacefully together as long as they don't attempt the forced conversions. Religious organizations compete with each other peacefully based on their teachings and practices, such competition allows undecided individuals to find their personal truth by experimenting with different religions or belief systems. The followers of all religions can all be happy at the same time practicing different beliefs, as long as the choices are their own. Most people, including myself, would fiercely defend others' religious freedom even though we may not necessarily agree with the particular religious teachings.
To illustrate this point, let's consider how to objectively evaluate Republican's policies against Democrats' policies. One might reasonably propose the following: Find two nearly identical cities, and let the Republicans and the Democrats each run one of them for 30 years, then we should be able to compare the final results and tell which party's policy is superior, right? Not quite. Before declaring winners, one must first define the criteria for success. Is success defined by the wealth, equality, people's happiness or less pollution? Even if we only look at a single measure, for example, the average income, it is still difficult to attribute the success to the ruling party's policy. For example, it may so happen that the economic success of a city is mostly due to random or external events, e.g., the next tech genius like Zuckerberg happens to be born there. Even if we could control and adjust all these random or external factors, the truth is still murky, for example a city's economic success might be driven by legalized gambling and prostitution. Is that still a success?
However, each individual would have a clear preference on which city he or she wants to live given the difference in policies and the corresponding results. If citizens can move freely between the two cities, most of them would be happy living in the city of their choice. Just like in religion, the truth in politics is personal, not universal. Paul's heaven can be Peter's hell. Therefore debating politics is like debating religion, the universal truth never comes out (unless one of the gods reveals itself in a dramatic manner) and it serves no useful purposes other than the entertainment values.
In religion, people have long accepted that the truth is personal, and the only practical approach is to respect each other's beliefs and ensure that everyone can freely practice the religion of his own choice. Trying to enforce a single religion or belief system to all the people always ended up with disastrous results in the known human history. Today, most countries protect people's religious freedom, and people of different religions can live peacefully together as long as they don't attempt the forced conversions. Religious organizations compete with each other peacefully based on their teachings and practices, such competition allows undecided individuals to find their personal truth by experimenting with different religions or belief systems. The followers of all religions can all be happy at the same time practicing different beliefs, as long as the choices are their own. Most people, including myself, would fiercely defend others' religious freedom even though we may not necessarily agree with the particular religious teachings.
We can all be in heaven if we practice politics in the same way as we practice religion today.
The fundamental difference between religion and government is that the government always enforces one set of rules to all people, without their unanimous consent. The current two party system is like forcing Christians and Buddhists to come up with one set of religious doctrines that both have to follow, which deprives both parties of their personal truth. There is no surprise that the current system is inefficient as they can rarely agree on anything; and neither side is happy with the results.
The fundamental difference between religion and government is that the government always enforces one set of rules to all people, without their unanimous consent. The current two party system is like forcing Christians and Buddhists to come up with one set of religious doctrines that both have to follow, which deprives both parties of their personal truth. There is no surprise that the current system is inefficient as they can rarely agree on anything; and neither side is happy with the results.
Why can't the politics learn from the organized religion, so that everyone can practice their own political beliefs, and respect each other's rights to practice their own personal truth? The ultimate political freedom is the right to freely form new governments, and the right for an individual to choose his/her own government associations. A necessary condition to achieve this without splitting up the country, is to strip the federal government of the monopoly on many powers, so that people can freely form new governments and enact laws and regulations that are consistent with their own political beliefs. It is criminal to deprive a person's religions freedom; and it is immoral to deprive a person's freedom to practice his/her own political beliefs, and subject him to the forced conversion under the current political system.
In the upcoming blogs, I will layout more details of how to redesign our government so that people's freedom to form and choose governments is ptotected.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
1. What's wrong with our government?
It is difficult to find any other institutions that are more universally loathed than our governments. Though often touted as the best government form ever existed, our federal and state governments are extremely complex, bloated and inefficient. Our governments routinely put the special interests ahead of the people and are often caught red-handed in illegal or immoral conducts. The recent incident of Snowdon is a timely reminder of what our government is capable of. Today Washington is caught in a hopeless gridlock of partisan politics and it is very difficult (if not impossible) to bring any meaningful legislation through the complicated maze of conflicting special interests and ideologies. Those bills that did manage to pass are often full of loopholes and earmarks, making their effects in practice highly unpredictable and often harmful. You need to look no further than our current federal tax code for a legislation that is complicated, senseless, full of loopholes and earmarks. Such tax code creates perverted incentives and unintended consequences, e.g., the highly sophisticated tax shelter schemes utilized by Apple is a prime example of how human ingenuity is wasted in the wrong place because of a bad piece of legislation. The current political system needs radical reforms, but fresh ideas have no chance of becoming law because ordinary voters understandably are skeptical and fearful of any dramatic changes from the status quo.
What is wrong with our government? People often blame corrupted politicians and officials, though convenient but that is a very simplistic and counterproductive view. I believe most people in the public service are most likely moral and do act with good intention for the public. The dire situation of our current governments is a sure product of our own political system, which is designed to have low efficiency by the founding fathers, with all the checks and balances in place to prevent the concentration and abuse of the power. The system has worked brilliantly in most of the United States history until in the last 50 years or so. There are many reasons why it no longer works in modern time, I will write about it in the upcoming blogs. For the moment, let's just focus on what is wrong and how to fix it.
If our government were a private corporation, it would have and should have gone out of business. No corporate that consistently operates in low efficiency, produces expensive services and products that are universally hated, and engages in illegal conducts can survive the free market competition, with an important exception of being a monopoly. That is exactly what's wrong with our government.
Our government enjoys the monopoly of many important powers: taxation, legal use of force, legislation and law enforcement, money printing, court and legal system etc. It is true that the governments have monopolized most of these powers throughout the civilized history, but in this day and age with the rapid advancement of technology and the unprecedented equal and free access to information, I argue that there are no longer any good reasons for the government to monopolize these powers. We can design a new form of government based on the distributed power, and having the governments compete to serve the needs of the people. Today there exist limited competition between state and city governments, citizens could move to other cities or states if they don't like the local legislation and government policies. However, such competition largely benefits only the large corporations and wealthy people who can actually afford to move; moving is rarely an option for ordinary people because of limited job mobility and family ties.
In this series of blogs, I will layout the new form of government based on the distribution of power and the free market competition in government services. I will argue that such a government form will bring much needed efficiency and transparency, meanwhile protect the liberty of the citizens to the fullest extent. Since this new government form is founded on the distribution of power, it doesn't need to be inefficient to prevent the concentration and abuse of power. This new form of government is not based on any particular political ideologies: People are free to choose, associate and practice any political doctrines. People with similar political views will group together to write their own legislation and form their own governments, and freely practice their own political doctrine to their hearts' content, just like how people organize and practice religion today. The new government form is not based on geographical regions like our city or state governments, instead they are based on ideologies and people's free association. Multiple governments will compete with each other to attract citizens, and the governments offering the best protections, services and benefits with the least costs will inevitable attract the most number of tax paying citizens. Multiple competing governments will allow all political ideas to be put into the ultimate test of practice, and they will bring out the best quality of competing ideologies because the citizens affiliated with the same government all share the same political views, thus they will be able to enact and enforce the uncompromised and true version of the laws that fully reflect their political beliefs.
The ideas may sound radical, but I will explain in the upcoming blogs that they are perfectly rational and practical. I hope this can spur some serious discussions on how we can fundamentally reform our outdated political system, and modernize our governing processes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)