I am convinced that an anarcho-capitalist social order is the best form of social order. So who do you think the silver medal should go to?
I think classical liberalism in the narrow sense has proven itself to be an unstable form of government. Look at the history of some examples of classical liberalism, such as the United States and 19th-century Britain. The Ratchet effect is a terrifying thing. The state tends to grow, and democracy constantly expands the state due to pressure and interest groups. At the end of this process, states similar to social democratic states are formed. Even though they have obnoxious things like minimum wages, labor regulations and a welfare state, the only democratic-post-democratic states that don't have to deal with things like high taxes and import bans are tax haven microstates like San Marino.
Such microstates are under great pressure to implement a freer market, but this certainly does not mean that every microstate will have a good free market. Consider countries like Tuvalu, which has a Freedom House score of 93 but a per capita income of only $4091. This country's population is 12- Around 13 thousand people. I can give many other similar examples; São Tomé and Príncipe or Comoros etc.
I think being decentralized is very important for the management model that will receive the silver medal, but this is not enough. For this very reason, I give the silver medal to Yarvin's Neocameralist city-states. I think a city-state that is run by shareholders like a company and whose shares are listed on the stock market is the second best thing we can have.
Even in Europe, proto-neocameralist states like Monaco or Liechtenstein outperform their fully democratic-post-democratic neighbors like SanMarino. What do you think? What is the second best social order in terms of criteria such as stability of the political model, respect for people's natural rights, and creation of wealth?
Posted by Fantastic-Fault-836