4 ms·

Agreed, but why should the "rest of the world sighs with relief"? Existing government is sub-optimal and competition tends to increase quality. Is there a spec

by kauffj 11y ago

Agreed, but why should the "rest of the world sighs with relief"? Existing government is sub-optimal and competition tends to increase quality. Is there a special property of government service that makes this principle fail here?

pjc50 11y ago
Government is not a service. It nearly always provides services, but it also provides stability and a means of dealing with "negative externalities". Running a government with a particularly lax policy on fraud, pollution, etc. can easily export problems around the world.
- deong 11y ago
  Also, governments don't compete with each other in the same market. Australia and Denmark aren't trying to outdo each other in recruiting the same "customers". We do sometimes see multiple governments competing in the same "markets". We usually call them "warlords" though, and it hasn't really worked out all that well for the people and lands being competed for.
- gosub 11y ago
  Aren't stability and "dealing with negative externalities" also services? Without goverments people would seek them elsewhere (other forms of ruling, insurance companies, etc.)
  - lmm 11y ago
    > Aren't stability and "dealing with negative externalities" also services? In a sense, but they're subject to a tragedy of the commons (that's almost the definition of a negative externality), so competition does not improve them.
- Crito 11y ago
  How many people do micronations actually have the capacity to harm? I mean in the real world, going from real world performance, not in fevered day-dreams of what "could" happen. I don't think the "rest of the world" really has any stake in it at all. A few hundred people do, at most. These people may not be completely harmless, but they also lack the capacity to hurt people in any significant numbers. If you can be hurt by a micronation, perhaps you need to reevaluate what your government is doing. How badly do they have to fuck up to the point that a micronation becomes relevant in your life?
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>Existing government is sub-optimal and competition tends to increase quality. Government is not a product or service. It doesn't follow market rules. Heck, who enforces market norms when at anytime you can send out warships and conquer everyone? If anything, we have way many small governments that often must bow down to the regional power and become de facto client states with limited autonomy and almost no ability to fight off the regional power if it thinks you've offended it in any way. Ukraine is getting a lesson in how little autonomy they have when they're so close to an aggressive regional power. Just because you are recognized as a country doesn't mean you enjoy the autonomy a country should. Smaller nations are just going to be under the thumb more than larger nations who can put up a proper military deterrent.

by kauffj 11y ago

pjc50 11y ago

Government is not a service. It nearly always provides services, but it also provides stability and a means of dealing with "negative externalities". Running a government with a particularly lax policy on fraud, pollution, etc. can easily export problems around the world.

deong 11y ago
Also, governments don't compete with each other in the same market. Australia and Denmark aren't trying to outdo each other in recruiting the same "customers". We do sometimes see multiple governments competing in the same "markets". We usually call them "warlords" though, and it hasn't really worked out all that well for the people and lands being competed for.
gosub 11y ago
Aren't stability and "dealing with negative externalities" also services? Without goverments people would seek them elsewhere (other forms of ruling, insurance companies, etc.)
- lmm 11y ago
  > Aren't stability and "dealing with negative externalities" also services? In a sense, but they're subject to a tragedy of the commons (that's almost the definition of a negative externality), so competition does not improve them.
Crito 11y ago
How many people do micronations actually have the capacity to harm? I mean in the real world, going from real world performance, not in fevered day-dreams of what "could" happen. I don't think the "rest of the world" really has any stake in it at all. A few hundred people do, at most. These people may not be completely harmless, but they also lack the capacity to hurt people in any significant numbers. If you can be hurt by a micronation, perhaps you need to reevaluate what your government is doing. How badly do they have to fuck up to the point that a micronation becomes relevant in your life?

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>Existing government is sub-optimal and competition tends to increase quality. Government is not a product or service. It doesn't follow market rules. Heck, who enforces market norms when at anytime you can send out warships and conquer everyone? If anything, we have way many small governments that often must bow down to the regional power and become de facto client states with limited autonomy and almost no ability to fight off the regional power if it thinks you've offended it in any way. Ukraine is getting a lesson in how little autonomy they have when they're so close to an aggressive regional power. Just because you are recognized as a country doesn't mean you enjoy the autonomy a country should. Smaller nations are just going to be under the thumb more than larger nations who can put up a proper military deterrent.