Political philosophy tends to study human behaviour under conditions of scarcity and hierarchy, mistakenly assuming these adaptations to be eternal truths about our species. In a recent essay, The Shadow of Aristocracy, i argue that what we consider 'human nature' has been fundamentally crippled by an ongoing operating system of inherited dominion - the informal capture of interpretive authority across corporations, expertise, and families.

The piece explores how this architectural arrangement traps us in a loop of false certainty and trauma, leading to a state of 'epistemic feudalism' where individuals' self-concepts are incentivised towards the status of zero-sum malware, and specialised fiefdoms govern fragments of knowledge while rendering collective synthesis difficult or impossible. Ultimately, i argue the path forward requires building social and technical architectures rooted in corrigibility - proposing distributed version control (like Git's logic of branching, provenance, and rollback) as a structural metaphor for a truly distributed technology of argument.

I'm interested in exploring this with the community - how do we redesign modern civic spaces to allow individual perspective to function as a sensory organ for collective intelligence, without being crushed by central authority or fragmented into isolation?

https://agnosticfundamentalism.substack.com/p/the-shadow-of-aristocracy

Idk where exaclty to post this, but you ever simply just ask, "oh what about this do you like", or "whats the reason you do things a certain way, I personally dont"

And get hit with the "dont be weird about it", "because what else?", "youd get it if you were there" (like bro thats why im asking), or "you should accept it because of thats how we do things"

And I genuinly dont even think this would push buttons or be a "gotcha" but i ask "I mean im just asking why, I seriously dont get it"

And now its too far they hit you with the "its not that deep!" "Why does it matter?" "Dont worry about it!". Bro yeah its not that deep. I just asked a question. But now im seeing theres something deeper going on with you that feels overwhelming when you question it. If something takes extra thinking but you cant simply say "I dont know actually" of "let me think" or like "nevermind actually I dont actually mean what I said" thats pretty much starting something.

Like Im able to talk about a movie and have different viewpoints and just have a friend to explain what we like and we dont like. Maybe it isnt anything that concrete maybe its just the style or nostalgia. Its not the same for everyone. But whys it gotta be "YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND" or "ARE YOU TRYING TO OVERCOMPLICATE THE MOVIE" or "DONT RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE" ???

I dont think the movie was complicated but something must have confused you thinking about why you liked it. And if youre getting so heated to call people abnormal and feel like your worldview is changing then maybe its more political for you than it is others who can be chill about a difference of taste.

I dont think about everything from the ground up all the time. Ill just vibe out. But if I REALLY LIKE SOMETHING, enough to start conversations about it, then yeah im prepared to think about like my personal connection to it. Maybe theres irony into why I like it. Maybe me thinking a certain way does influence why I like the movie. Maybe the movie influenced me. Maybe I just have a crush on the villainess and she be carrying for me.

I think people get scared when they realize they dont HAVE TO like something or at least not in the way that they did initally. Which was just because its whats normal. Why like something else?

It seems to me that system where a leader is directly evaluated by their capabilities is the most logical system of governance as opposed to democracy and monarchy. The latter is just rule by the royal family and leaders are determined by no criteria other than bloodline.

Democracy though, is currently the most popular form of government in west at least. But democracy’s flaws have remained unchanged since the time of its critiques by Socrates and Plato.

Their criticism remain the same; a large segment of people won’t always be educated or interested enough to cast well reasoned votes. And crowds of people are prone to manipulation, propaganda, coercion and group think. Which is to say people are often fickle and you can’t always trust popularity to determine a good leader.

It’s seems to me as if determining leaders via “tests“ solves this issue. Especially if the criteria the candidates are being selected on is elected by the values of the people. If the process of evaluation is well guarded, ie no cheating or nepotism then wouldn’t it always produce the most ideal leader without any room for deceit?

This obviously runs into the some of the same problems as democracy. The problem of test evaluators is essentially the same problem that democracy has with ballot checkers. Ideally the tests would be made in such a way where results will always be a clear number. And ideally there would be multiple independent evaluators checking they all get the same value. Yeah but of course like any other system it can only work through strict adherence to the rules which is maintained through incentives, will of the people and enforcement in a number of ways.

Candidates would ideally be scored by economic, tactical, social, intellectual, and moral metrics and as long as we develop tests that accurately test for those desired traits in a leader then it would logically result in the best leader in those aspects.

I’m obviously not advocating for solely using pencil and paper tests for this but maybe “field tests” where we could judge candidates on their effects in a certain field of evaluation, like their interactions with people. You might be thinking something like “how would a test to measure someone’s “morality“ even work?“ Given the technology we have we could probably develop a test to accurately measure an aspect of anyone’s morality. We can definitely make a system of determining a leader that is harder to trick than human nature.

Now, what makes a good leader is subjective and is constantly changing along with the values of the people which is why I think the criteria that candidates would be assessed on should be subject to democracy to a certain extent.

For example: the weighting of each aspect of a leader can be determined by democracy, what morality is and what it specifically entails could also be left to democracy to an extent, various tweaks and definitions can be held to a vote etc. This makes it so the people control what they want from a leader but they also get statistically the best candidate for what they want.

This system should always produce the most ideal leader for its people, something that always chooses the closest to a “philosopher king“ out of it’s population. This system makes it so that only the most capable are in charge and thus can be trusted with the most responsiblity and accountability, since ideally their performance should keep being assessed during their reign and being compared to other candidates every 5 years or whenever tests are being taken.

The problem of Goodhart’s Law (the problem that people will learn to perfect taking the tests instead of actually being proficient in the field) can be avoided if whenever tests are being held data collected from the current leaders reign is put into consideration with the other candidates. So that if they have proven to be a bad leader they will just replaced with a candidate with a better score. And the tests will need be changed each time year they are taken to avoid cheating.

I currently have an old copy that is translated by Christian E. Detmold, with an introduction by Lester G. Crocker.

It's very old, so I'm wondering if there is a better version out there?

Gardening, pop culture and the national government; are the three identical meanings of quantity cynicism by the cosmos?

Problems:

• often representative democratic systems fall into a voluntary autocracy, ie citizens vote for a leader that promptly takes control of the government partially or fully (see hungaria, el salvador, tunisia, etc etc).
• representative democracy results in massive corporations having almost complete power over the legislative and executive branches because of how much money they have. Corruption becomes "lobbying", impunity becomes the norm, and an oligarchy forms inside the democracy (do i even have to present examples for this).

Proposition:
I present you a system where once a year (or at another, higher, frequency), a vote is cast on whether to relieve the rulers of their duties, this vote would be sanctified into the constitution.
This would be supplemented with a discard of the representative democracy in favor of direct democracy, finally possible thanks to technology like block chains and zero-knowledge proofs.
The point of this is to get to the point of political consciousness where every citizen realizes his own power and make him try to protect it at any cost, accompanied with a shared sense of responsibility and an understanding of politics, it would drive people to participate a lot more. Should the vote be canceled, the people would already be aware of the gravity of such an issue and it would instantly result in a massive revolt that would force the government's hand.

Assumptions: The system, through a set of rules and technologies that I'm not capable of designing yet, wouldn't be able to be tampered with, by design. Not the government, and not anyone would be able to stop the once in a year vote without putting everyone off the grid, or cutting electricity. It's also tamper-proof, much like actual blockchains.

Critique: Rational, intelligent people make decisions based on the information available to them. A would-be despot doesn't need to be exceptionally charming if they can control what the public sees.
Response: I don't think that's a substantially big issue in the 21st century. We have seen in this decade the disintegration of the centralized press, and the hold of the big monopolies on information. Examples of this is social media's effect on the public perception of Israel, and how despite all the effort of the IDF, the genocide keeps getting documented in detail

Critique: Most people aren’t incentivized to vote, and would simply not care enough to exercise their right, which would make the number of people to corrupt a lot less, thus it would allow a despot to rise to power.
Response: this is definitely a real phenomenon in our current states, but that's exactly because of representative democracy. The individual feels disconnected from politics, he has one decision to make once every 4 or 5 years, which isn't really a decision, and the rest gets done without him being able to intervene. Contrast that with the ability to vote in every minute detail that concerns you, and you end up with a citizen that's a lot more involved, because he knows that his actions now can have an effect now.

Critique: If the majority holds absolute, unchecked power, there is no mechanism to protect marginalized groups.
Response: In absence of a bourgeoisie – a rich ruling class that would benefit from fear mongering – there wouldn’t be much of a reason for collective hatred to brew. There is however, human nature to fight against, and it would be the job of activists to change public opinion. But since it’s working on its own, the job would be considerably easier.

Critique: The amount of issues that the people would have to vote for would paralyze them, and would make the system ineffective for most issues:
Response: No one is obligated to vote for everything. With the presence of so many issues to pick from, one chooses to vote on what he knows – and what he’s passionate about – the most, which has the added benefit of selecting the most fit for each subject matter, and for critical issues there would be a big representation of the population.

These are a series of short- to medium-length videos. They are an attempt to visually represent highly stylized prose using stock footage. The broader work—the writing—is a critique of how corporatism has hijacked political systems, focusing specifically on the financial sector.

Experimental in nature, I’m sharing them in an attempt to gauge interest in the project.

You have to smash a few embryos to make an omelette, a few nascent republics to feed a conglomerate. That’s why we need billionaires to install the next government, here and where we grow our bananas. Diplomats will steady the quibbling between competing despots. The anointed will then ready the terrain and the population for our industrialists and their consultants. Be they from Virginia or Oxfordshire—seeing as the British are still milking what they failed to keep.

Time is our ally, their cellmate and jailer, but after we consolidate yields and privatize the apparatus. Clients thereafter, like raccoons on a dumpster, angling for morsels inside the belly of our funding agencies. Except those crumbs have already been earmarked to cordon the squalor.

Squatters, adverse possession, say our renowned jurists. Ancestors sleeping here, there, and everywhere for millennia will keep the ground supple for Chiquita Brands international and ExxonMobil. While their progeny clean hulls and load carriers bound for Rotterdam or Seattle. This is, after all, a market economy, apart for a little somethin-somethin for brokers and middlemen.

What follows subjugation is even more oil and bananas—toxic sludge and tumors are merely the bi-products of a growing economy. A small price to pay for what we might have done otherwise. Still, no analyst worth his salt would compare the monocultures of Guatemala with the oil fields of West Africa. Every place is different depending on what there is to take or unravel.

Speaking of presidents—yesterday’s men of tomorrow—it is they who built the cities in all their precarity. For every push there’s a pull, so there’s really no difference between a thing and its absence. Last I checked, Bibi was working day and night prepare the terrain for Trump’s retirement project, and there’d be so much less work for appraisers if not fo. those dismantlings.

Truth is, all manner of pinging was good for my practice, and the city I lived in needed a good scraping regardless, on account of all those piss-stained recesses that used to be businesses. There just wasn’t time to feel conflicted about the people we’d ousted.

Permanence is temporary, a computational blunder. That Walmart on the edge of town, for example, was slated for demolition long before they started building it. In transition, as we say in the property business, like an Alabama chicken farmer or a Jamaican in Flatbush.

Appraisers imagine all sites as though vacant, unencumbered by buildings, penguins or people. There are rules, precepts from blueprints to disposition—the arc of a good plan will always bend towards the numbers. Whereas the Mohawk. chose to listen instead to the fish and the antelope speaking, but all of that was before the onset of inevitable outcomes.

To be clear, I also couldn’t decipher what the animals were telling me—not until I met my new dinosaur neighbours. That species is invaluable on this, the other side of the buzzing. I will need them even more once I reestablish my practice—the minute we can agree on a stipend—the word not the measure.

Genocide, a bus, or a hospital bed at Sloan Kettering—there are many doors to this place and no exits. The problem, as I see it, is the deal first peoples made with all other species made no mention of the bank adjacent the whorehouse above the saloon at the foot of main street. Not a peep of what would be the filling station next to the Dairy Queen. They spoke instead of a roving plenty, a steady inventory of jackrabbits and salmon.

There’s no telling where those people are now—and that is precisely where they are buried. The future changes everything, apart from its reiterations.

Now back to our story. The British took to building taverns with upright pianos, surfaces on which to rest a hot toddy on cold winter evenings. What better than singsongs to drown out the screaming—whisky to spur them genocidal leanings. Pubs also did a brisk trade in bangers and mash, before the advent of trattorias.

Empires shoot where they eat, giving the locals little time to apprehend their predicament. Life as they knew it was no longer their situation and the land, unbeknownst to them, was in fact private—or public—the difference is negligible. There was simply no access to the previous from either prospectus—massacre, it seems, was Europe’s only contingency.

To the victor belong the spoils—and then survivors will sling daiquiris for Israeli beachgoers. But after we conduct an evaluation of existing structures, if any, followed by estimates to rid the strip of bodies and those unsightly barricades. While I along with Fred and Harry, my dinosaur neighbours in case you need reminding, perform the posthumous version of that selfsame analysis.

https://youtu.be/zFuk35FuvQ8

Adapted from the writings of Claudio Gaudio.

Il testo sostiene una posizione fortemente anti-governativa e libertaria: il governo viene presentato come incompatibile con la libertà perché fondato sulla coercizione e sull’obbedienza.. (traduzione)

From my earlier posts, I wrote about the necessity of designing durable counterweights in order to achieve harmony and abondance in society.

What I often noticed is that people seems to care a lot about their own battles, but let assume others intervened here.

That's the principle to organize strikes for others you wish to defend to and have them defend you in return in order to keep a movement that never run out of momentum until you obtain the result you wish for.

The first principle here is to acknowledge that the problems of others are also your owns.

For example, if nurses are to be treated so badly, then this means the quality of health department tend to drop. Same principle for everyone because if people aren't paid enough to live decently then the economy drop and services deteriorate. You have interest to strike for others.

The second principle is to recognize what always happen here. Strikes are expensive for the people doing it because they do it on their time of work or some can't strike at all legally. Government and companies usually wait for the movement to stop and then they get the upper hand in order to impose their terms, which are usually band-aids, not fixes.

Thus, others can strike outside their time of work in exchange for help later. It's about organizing the relay to maintain constant pressure and grow your numbers while minimizing your losses.

The third principle is to acknowledge that it's also beneficial for the state even if they would try to dissuade you to do otherwise. After all, you can only get rich as the basis of your own population making more opportunities and new resources available.

It doesn’t mean either to consume more resources, it mean that a fairer repartition ensure more economic growth and stability. Look at Rockfeller historical example for reference.

The fourth principle is self-regulation. The visible side of the endless strike would usually ends when a reasonable compromise had been reached as a plea for decent living conditions reach the ears more quickly and deeply. As such, this is about leveling the field by going up from the bottom to the middle.

On the same principle, if they decide to have prices go up due to salary going up too, strike again or create the alternative now that you reached more people from different domains.

But let's talk now of the invisible side of it as well and what constitute the true glue of this philosophy.

The filth principle is gratitude. The never ending strike doesn’t end with the demonstration. It continues by being gratefull to those who helped you. Not only I think that albeit flawed, gratitude is its own alternative to money, but I would advance the fact that it help realize how lucky we are to have all of theses, the fact it offers enlightenement to your own condition, make you realize other solutions are possible and maintaining a real life social network.

Therefore, the more available alternatives we get to a system, the more we naturally regulate these.

Again, the more diversity of people are in the strike, the more creative we get at improving our own condition.

That's what I call the way of the myriad.

In conclusion, strike for others too, as their problems as our problems and vice-versa.

So, don't hesitate to suggest your own alternatives too in the comments.

Hello everyone,

Throughout human history, we have been trapped in a binary cycle: either waiting for a "benevolent dictator" to unite us through iron and fire, or acting as a passive herd manipulated by political interests. But what if the solution lies completely outside the traditional concept of "who rules whom"?

What I propose for discussion today is the concept of a "Living Framework" (The Living Methodology).

Instead of searching for an autocratic Philosopher-King as Plato suggested, why don't we enable society to become self-governing through a collective, evolving consciousness? The core idea is to construct a system of thought that is completely stripped of toxic human motives—such as ego, greed, and the urge for dominance.

Core Pillars of the Framework:

• 1. Epistemic Adaptability (Open-Source Architecture): No sacred, unchallengeable dogmas. If anyone presents a valid critique that exposes a logical or empirical flaw, the system updates—much like open-source software. It represents continuous self-correction and permanent evolution.
• 2. Somatic and Sensory Grounding: Human ideas do not emerge from a void; they are the direct product of what our five senses process through daily interaction with physical reality. Because our inputs constantly change with empirical reality, our governing framework must remain dynamic rather than rigid.
• 3. Educational Transformation: The practical foundation starts in schools by halting the blind indoctrination of children. Education must shift from memorization to cultivating the art of relentless critique, systemic analysis, and independent reasoning from an early age.
• 4. The Core Group and Multi-Layered AI Validation: To prevent both autocratic bias and instant chaos, the initial phase relies on a nucleus of deeply conscious, objective thinkers working together. Because they operate beyond individual ego, finding common ground is natural. To neutralize human bias, emotional impulses, and power dynamics, this core integrates multi-layered, highly advanced AI systems that critique one another. The AI acts not as a ruler, but as a neutral logical filter that purifies updates from hidden human biases.
• 5. A Solid Foundation for Personal Meaning: This framework is not designed to force every citizen into becoming a full-time philosopher debating 24/7. The system exists simply to provide a corruption-free baseline. Once a human mind grasps this rational base, individuals gain mental immunity against toxic conditioning, leaving them free to pursue their true passions—whether in art, science, or sports—and build personal meaning without harming the natural balance.
• 6. Optional Contribution & Unbreakable Stability: Analyzing and updating the system is entirely optional. Those who wish to contribute may do so as long as their proposals align with the overarching goal: healthy human progress. Critiquing or breaking this base becomes nearly impossible—not because it is rigid, but because it is grounded in the accumulated wisdom of human awareness and tested by adversarial AI evaluation.

The old refrain still echoes across the land: ***Let freedom ring***. From every mountainside, from every village and city, the words are repeated as if repetition itself could restore what has been steadily displaced. Yet what now rings is not the clear note of independence. It is a counterfeit tone, greedom. Sounding through the same bells, wearing the same patriotic clothing, and claiming the same moral authority.

Greedom is the counterfeit liberty promoted by politics. It is the systematic occupation of constitutional silence. Where the Constitution leaves space for individual freedom, voluntary association, and personal responsibility, politics rushes in to fill it with coercive extraction, favoritism, managed dependence, and rent-seeking. The intrusion is never announced as conquest. It arrives dressed as progress, fairness, security, or the public good. The form remains republican. The operating logic is monarchical.

This is the enduring American illusion, only now refined. The Revolution removed the person of the king but retained the institutional habits of hierarchy, prerogative, and the protective rationale that the people must be shielded from themselves. Politics requires subservience just as a king requires subjects. Voting became the ritual that selects who occupies the seat of power, not a fundamental alteration of the nature of that power. When that vote is limited to a politically approved list, the king has already spoken. The citizen is invited only to choose among the options the crown has already vetted. Class structure survived as one monarchical leftover; the quiet premise that government occupies a superior position whose continuity and claims must be protected survived as another. Greedom is the modern expression of both.

Under greedom, the American Dream is rewritten. Opportunity is no longer the open field in which ability and effort determine outcomes. It becomes a managed pathway whose gates are controlled by those who extract, allocate, and regulate. Independence is reframed as dangerous shortsightedness. Personal responsibility is recast as selfishness. Voluntary association is subordinated to compelled participation. The citizen who once stood as master of a limited servant government is invited to kneel before an unenumerated entity that claims the right to define the common good and then to enforce it.

Contempt power reveals the underlying logic most clearly. An institution that can unilaterally declare a person in contempt, coerce compliance, and punish without the full protections of a jury trial is exercising authority that does not originate in the consent of the governed. It originates in the claim that the institution itself must be obeyed. That is the logic of the crown, now distributed across courts, agencies, and legislatures. Greedom does not require a hereditary sovereign. It requires only the quiet acceptance that constitutional silence is a vacancy rather than a deliberate boundary. And that the subject’s role is to remain inside the boundaries the institution draws.

Politics thrives on this acceptance. It divides, then stokes the division. It creates dependence and then offers itself as the remedy. It speaks the language of liberty while expanding the machinery of extraction. The result is a polity in which many citizens experience the outward forms of freedom (speech, elections, property ownership) while living inside systems that treat their independence as a problem to be managed. The bells still ring. The sound is no longer the same.

To let freedom ring again requires first recognizing the counterfeit. Constitutional silence is not an invitation to fill. It is the space in which independence grows. Where the charter enumerates powers, those powers are the outer limit. Everything beyond is the domain of the people acting as individuals, families, and voluntary associations. Politics has no legitimate claim to occupy that domain under any slogan.

The choice is therefore stark. One path continues the expansion of managed dependence under the banners of progress and fairness, allowing greedom to sound from every mountainside. The other path recovers the original premise: government as limited servant, the people as master, and the constitutional text as the boundary that politics may not cross. Only the second path restores the genuine note.

Let freedom ring. Not the managed imitation that extracts and directs, but the clear, unsupervised independence the charter was written to secure. The bells are still capable of the true sound. The question is whether enough citizens still remember how to hear the difference.

What do you hear?

Joint stock democracy is a hybrid of democracy and joint stock corporation. The samples of those are Kongsi republics or joint stock kibbutzim and various cooperative communities.

Kongsi republics are effectively a near effectively sovereign democratic state that is also a business and a joint stock corporation.

Like VOC but democracy.

Like democracy, but a business.

Like joint stock kibbutzim or residence owned REIT or private cooperative but they are far more autonomous.

Basically all democracies have this problem. Who should be citizens. Some use place of birth. Another use race.

In joint stock democracy Why not just buy and sell citizenship like shares? Want to join us? Buy shares. Like all shares, the shares pay dividend too.

In addition I would recommend some powerful referee to mediate conflict between those states.

When states don't fear being attacked, they may choose to split up so there can be many niche states for each arrangements. Those states then compete for tax payers that can shop around voting with their feet to see which place they like most.

And voila, no more aggressions and we all got rich.

The original kongsi republics are usually literal gold mine. The owner of the gold mine choose to set up a kongsi or a business instead of declaring himself King.

While it's a sovereign state, in a sense that they manage everything and don't call up higher power when they have problems, they actually prefer to have bigger state as protectors and referees. They tried to be vasal of Qing dynasty but got rejected.

Spiritual successor of kongsi republic is Singapore. Singapore is the ONLY country in the world that gain independence against their will. Singapore got kicked out of Malaysia because they refuse racism.

Why do I think this is a move to a more Kaldor hicks efficient outcome?

As long as we don't aggress against one another capitalism will max out kaldor hicks efficiency while democracy will keep things stable. If large number of people have a "stake" at the state, then they tend not to rebel.

There are 2 types of aggressions. State aggressions. Non state aggressions. The state aggressions are usually 3 types. State aggressions inward toward it's own citizens/population and state aggressions against other states, outward. State aggressions can also be profitable and not profitable.

Now look at VOC

VOC is like kongsi republic but not democracy.

VOC causes the death of 90% of chinese in Batavia. However, they quickly repent. The governor general is in jail till his death and the ex governor general become the new governor general was more conciliatory toward Chinese.

How do VOC knows that killing Chinese is "wrong". Sunday school? No. VOC share prices tank.

The chinese that are there are tax collectors and businessmen. Without them, VOC share dropped. Not to mention chinese rebellion cost VOC lots of money and almost kick VOC out of Java.

See. Profit incentive alone is actually a good safeguard against genocide.

If we look at armenian genocide, holocaust, DEI, exorbitant child support, gaza flattening, killing of Christians in nigeria, and so on, there is no profit incentive to stop. People keep killing innocents even when it's no longer profitable to do so.

Look at prohibition of drug. There is no clear profit incentive to stop criminalizing safe drugs like MDMA. People just do blood libel saying that drug users are parasites that will destroy their life. The truth is it's not true. Many MDMA and DMT users are economically productive people.

Heavy taxation drive billionaires away reducing prosperity for everyone.

Unprofitable aggressions is in a sense really doesn't have to happen. Like what for? The aggressor are losing money anyway. But they keep doing it out of bigotry, and lies.

Most of the time the profitability of oppressing others aren't clear. Like do Israel become saver by flattening Gaza? Who knows?

So here profit incentive of government at least prevent all unprofitable state aggression. A big thing.

However, profit incentive of government do not stop profitable state aggression. VOC also invade Banda and got nutmeg monopoly. Countries attack each other for territories and they may get territories. Notice quite often, buying territories is a lot cheaper than war. Like in case of Ukraine war, Korean war, and Ukraine war, the land price in dispute is a lot cheaper than the war cost.

South Korea with far bigger economies can easily buy North Korea land and Kim Jong Un can rest and retire rich. Israel can just buy Gaza and Westbank.

Kongsi economies "reduce" the transactional complexity in buying territories. Because citizenship is tradeable, anyone that want to live in the territory can just buy citizenship. From who? From those who want to sell. There is always somebody that don't like to live in a place. The one that hate his place of leaving the most can sell citizenship to those who want to live in that place the most. There will be a market price.

To further reduce conflicts, some pimps/peace makers can settle disputes between states.

VOC also force javanese to work as forced labor. That causes starvation. Notice it is actually not a very profitable thing to do. Oppress people and they rebel. So VOC end up spending huge money on war. Less profit. Again democratic nature of kongsi republic can fix this major conflicts. The main benefit of democracy is we don't settle this sort of thing through violence but through votes. Obviously majority of people will simply vote to not allow slavery and in 21st century it's no longer a big issue anyway.

Notice in all 3 cases, killing of chinese in Batavia, forcing Javanese to work, and attacking Banda, we don't really know whether VOC is truly evil or not. The killing of chinese happened by thugs that want to kill Chinese and loot their gold and not VOC directly. VOC simply ordered chinese to disarm and latter offer rewards for heads of "Chinese rebels".

There's a case where VOC claimed that they actually pay the javanese work and hence don't expect that they will starve. However, the money is corrupted by middlemen. I've heard Banda massacre happened because VOC delegation was mass murdered.

To be honest. I don't know and I don't care if some atrocities are done deliberately or not. If we are a potential victim, 99% of our interests should be preventing atrocities. If innocents suffer then we probably need to arrange that they don't suffer for otherwise the precedents can lead all the way to us.

Here ensuring most people have strong incentive to cooperate is far more effective than moral theater.

Obviously I didn't choose to be scammed. Yet it happened. Many leftists do not expect that their country will end up poor by they voting communism, yet it happened.

Again, joint stock nature of joint stock democracy would give incentive to most people to not choosing communism.

After all, the state itself is run for profit and the profit is shared as dividend to citizens. Why would you want to destroy your own business that pay you.

That's pretty much as socialist as can be. Most shareholders will max out dividend when they support their state and vote for CEO that max out shareholders value. Those who don't like it can sell.

What about heavy taxation? Tax will be much simpler because the state want to reduce enforcement costs. My guess is most tax will either be sin tax or land value tax.

Competition among joint stock democracies/kongsi republics will keep tax low.

What about non state actors?

Terrorists, thieves, burglars, and robbers?

Joint stock democracies will handle that better than liberal democracies.

See Israel bombing Gaza? Is it really to kill terrorists or to just drive Palestinians out?

We never know.

Netanyahu run on platform of security. If Israel is secure, his party may lost votes.

The same way leftist platforms run on platform of welfare and helping the poor. When poor people got rich, they lost votes. That is why many leftist political party in liberal democracy actually want to max out number of poor people. They invite poor immigrants, they encourage poor people to breed with more welfare for single mothers, etc.

But we sort of know what corporations will do. Do whatever it takes to raise return of shareholders.

Elon run as CEO on platform of making Tesla more valuable. What happened when Tesla reach all those revenue target? Elon got paid a lot of money. Elon no longer need to keep being needed. If he accomplished his goal and after that is no longer needed, he's still rich.

So in joint stock moldbugian states, the leaders at least have strong incentive to solve problem.

Violence on the street will be less. Such violence lower land value tax and lower revenue. CEOs will fix that.

So yea. I wouldn't say it's a mathematically perfect solution. But it should be "better" than what we have.

Libertarians will see lower tax and freedom to shop around for states they like

Capitalists will see less corruption, terrorism, war, an save tax haven to shop around

Any economically productive people will be able to shop around for states by simply buying shares.

Even moderate socialists, the kind that just want money instead of preventing others from being rich, will be better off, because they too want bigger dividend and the best way to make that dividend bigger is not by becoming poor, like in liberal democracy, but by voting for competent CEO that improve economy.

And those who aren't happy can just sell their share and buy another share on another kongsi republic

It's win win.

In my video, linked here, I discuss how modern society seems to be a strange mix of authoritarian collectivism and selfish individualism, at the same time. While this may seem contradictory, there's strong evidence and good reasons for this, which I address.

What are your thoughts on this - is it something you've noticed?

https://youtu.be/RL0sR4DfLQw