3 ms·

I think it's disorienting, maybe straight harmful, to view this through the lens of consumption and competition. The choice of where to live is not primarily a

I think it's disorienting, maybe straight harmful, to view this through the lens of consumption and competition. The choice of where to live is not primarily a market-based one for most people during most of their lives, it's setting the priorities wrong. A government should be oriented towards the needs of the people who live under and depend on it. Many people have effectively no choice to make in what state they live in, and their needs and preferences matter more than those of someone who doesn't even live there but might move there. The "competition for citizens" model doesn't really account for that in any way I can respect.

systemvoltage 4y ago
How the hell is competition between states harmful? Id argue that doing anything but having states compete for betterment of the society is harmful, if not straight out totalitarian. You cannot eliminate incentives from top-down. In a free society where interstate commerce is protected by the constitution, posing limits on incentives would be pretty much the death of this republic.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  What resource are they competing for? Souls? Tax dollars? You don't win points by having a high population, so why do states want one? There's no shareholders here. It's easy to imagine scenarios where the economic desires of high-wealth outsiders who could move to a state are directly opposed to the needs of low-wealth people currently living there. A competition-based model would find it easy to make the wrong choice.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    > It's easy to imagine scenarios where the economic desires of high-wealth outsiders who could move to a state Can you cite such examples? Melbourne, Switzerland, Singapore, HK and 20th century examples of SF, NYC, London were all attractive hyper capitalistic cities.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Right and how do the people who have lived in those places the whole time feel about it? A very common complaint in those cities is that local interests are deprioritized to make a more favorable environment for the rich. There's probably some amount of unavoidable tension between these things but viewing gov policy mainly as a means to compete for wealth holders does not seem likely to lead to balanced outcomes.

systemvoltage 4y ago

How the hell is competition between states harmful? Id argue that doing anything but having states compete for betterment of the society is harmful, if not straight out totalitarian. You cannot eliminate incentives from top-down. In a free society where interstate commerce is protected by the constitution, posing limits on incentives would be pretty much the death of this republic.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
What resource are they competing for? Souls? Tax dollars? You don't win points by having a high population, so why do states want one? There's no shareholders here. It's easy to imagine scenarios where the economic desires of high-wealth outsiders who could move to a state are directly opposed to the needs of low-wealth people currently living there. A competition-based model would find it easy to make the wrong choice.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  > It's easy to imagine scenarios where the economic desires of high-wealth outsiders who could move to a state Can you cite such examples? Melbourne, Switzerland, Singapore, HK and 20th century examples of SF, NYC, London were all attractive hyper capitalistic cities.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Right and how do the people who have lived in those places the whole time feel about it? A very common complaint in those cities is that local interests are deprioritized to make a more favorable environment for the rich. There's probably some amount of unavoidable tension between these things but viewing gov policy mainly as a means to compete for wealth holders does not seem likely to lead to balanced outcomes.