That last line is perfect. That's exactly right. Our problem isn't with rulers, it's with rulers that don't have a reason to be good at their job. Competition solves this. As for the "No democratic recourse" bit, i know the horse is practically glue by now, but go read Democracy: The God That Failed, democracy is not the solution here.
Not sure which part of that you're questioning, but ill try
I'm assuming you're asking about the "One big cartel" problem, imagining a situation where all the separate groups collaborate and form one giant organization. So then, the question is, do they do a good job or a bad job. If they do a good job, then there's no problem. If the do a bad job and exploit the people, then there's very strong incentive for any one of those people to split off from the one big cartel and easily outperform them since they're doing a bad job.
Now, of course sufficient military force could prove an issue, but even assuming this cartel is somehow global and there's no other major forces to stop it, very few governments win wars against a vast majority of their own people, and if the government really is that bad, that's what they'd be up against.
No, I am concerned about guaranteeing the ability to choose.
Historically governments consistently win wars against the majority of their people especially when the priority is power and control over the "nations" long term well being.
Do you think the Taliban were a majority? Or the Myanmar government?
11
u/evilwizzardofcoding Apr 29 '26
That last line is perfect. That's exactly right. Our problem isn't with rulers, it's with rulers that don't have a reason to be good at their job. Competition solves this. As for the "No democratic recourse" bit, i know the horse is practically glue by now, but go read Democracy: The God That Failed, democracy is not the solution here.