What Will Happen After Democracy?

Democracy is fine. Most change of rulers do not involve civil war. Citizens are pretty united. Typical democracies are rich.

Is there something even better? Sure. Look at corporations. You see stockholders in corporations wage civil war against one another? No. You see big conflict of interests among stockholders? No. You see different faction bullshit their way out to move money from one stockholders to another? No.

Corporate governments are often even better governed than democratic states. So why not used what's working for corporate governments and use that for the states?

Best of all, those changes can be done within democratic framework. It's already happening. States becoming more and more like corporations. Slowly and surely the people see the benefits of turning their states into corporation like and vote that way.

The states have many similarities with the corporations. We can think of a state as a corporation in "protection business".

The population are the customers. The stockholders are the rulers, which is either the people in democracy, or the king in monarchy. The CEO are simply the presidents. The board of directors are simply the representative.

The product varies. For most libertarians, the products are liberty and security. For some religious people, the products are the religion itself. Many religious voters are happy if government would ban porn, for example, to the chagrin of libertarians.

Just like the customers can buy different products or go to different theme parks, disgruntled population can simply move to another state. That is why factories are moving to China. That is why IT businesses are incorporated at tax haven. That is why digital nomads are moving from states to states.

Democratic countries are one of the most flexible and efficient government in the world. Democratic countries can be very rich and can be very poor. However, on average, they tend to be "fine".

Democracy, however, is different than corporation in one big important ways. In democracy, the population are the stockholders.

The customers, in general, are not stockholders of a corporation. They have different roles, expertise, knowledge and interests. And yet, customers and stockholders' interests and knowledge are properly aligned even more than the interests of people in democratic countries.

Democracy means the state is ruled by the population. This happens irrelevant of whether the population have contributed well to the society.

In other word, a parasitic welfare queen can breed 10 children and get many free citizenships for their children. Those citizenship gives her children significant right to vote and indirectly run the lives of CEOs and start up founders. If those 10 children, that didn't contribute in anyway to the state, suddenly decide to close their ears, have faith on a god that demand women to pick single poor males, then the whole state is pretty screwed.

For comparison, shareholders' stocks are usually owned by someone that have contributed significantly to the corporation or buy it from someone else. Giving away stocks to those who contributed nothing would dilute the value of the stock.

Democracy gives citizenship to people that do not contribute anything. US, for example, gives citizenship away to those who are born in US. Europe, for example, gives citizenship to refugees and their descendants. As time goes by, ownership of the state, in democratic countries, go to voting bloc that produces more children.

Stockholders usually get dividend. Citizens usually get benefits such as job creation, usage of infrastructure, security, etc. Basically, one voting bloc gets benefit of the state by rent seeking. This usually hurt another voting blocs.

Because what benefit one citizen usually hurt another citizen, many citizens hate each other. Civil wars often happen in many states. This happens even more often in non-democratic countries.

Also, stockholders own the corporations. Citizens do not really "own" their country. Stockholders can sell their stocks. Citizens cannot sell their citizenship. Citizens are like friends. If you don’t want to be my friends anymore you can’t just sell your friendship with me.

However, currently, immigrants constitute a small portion of the world population. While many wants to leave their state, few states want to accept immigrants.

Most people, hence, are effectively forced to obey rulers they never agree to obey. This is different than most corporations.

Most interaction with corporations are consensual. I go to Disney land because I chose to go to Disney land.

The same cannot be said about people that live in Iran. Many probably do not like Islamic revolution there. Then their country change and they are forced to obey the new regime.

In stocks, I usually get paid if I get rid of my Apple stocks. I usually do that by selling the stocks and use the money to buy say, Microsoft’s stocks. In states citizens cannot just sell their citizenship.

So, governments can tax citizen heavily while saying that once infrastructure is build you will enjoy easier life. However, once the infrastructure is build, I may want to just leave my country. When that happen, I lost all benefits of that infrastructure but paid for the costs. When I go to a new country I will enjoy the infrastructure of the new country but didn’t pay for the costs. What happens is, most well governed countries simply reject most potential immigrants.
These differences cause economic inefficiency in many states. Government inefficiency is so well known. You can read more here https://www.quora.com/Why-are-governments-so-inefficient.

However, we are seeing this efficiency going away. In the future, the states will have governed more and more like corporation.

Many people are unhappy with their government. While democracy helps, it’s far from idea. In some democracy, the people simply vote for bigots that steal their money. Most humans are not trained politicians. Most of us don't know and have little interests in governing. And yet, we are forced to decide what should the state do.

Some non-democratic countries easily outperform democracy. Singapore, Dubai. Even China may take over US in terms of percapita income.

What can be better and still works?

Anything else is governed better than a democratic state?

Of course.

Corporations. Corporations and businesses, big and small, are often governed very very well. You think Apple would hit a trillion valuation if it is governed badly?

There is something, on top of Apple though. What is it? US government? Think again. Well, okay there are several things that are on top of Apple. One is governments. The other is the market itself. Apple lives in a capitalistic world.

If Apple's CEO decides to produce lousy products customers won't buy Apple's product. I prefer Android anyway. And that will reduce Apple's profit.

Apple have similar problems with states. Most stockholders of Apple don’t know how to govern a corporation. Hell, most of them just buy hoping to let go when the price goes up. Some just buy index funds and "own" a part of many different companies. None of them know or care how Apple is governed.

Yet, somehow it works out. Apple is a very well governed organization. Much more united and prosperous than most governments. Corruption in Apple is low. We don't have various voting blocs in Apple trying to seek rent from another voting blocs. We do not, for example, have religious stockholders demanding more dividend than secular stockholders. No stockholders in Apple demand apple to give bonuses to stockholders with children.

I still remember a civil war in Apple, where one disgruntled stockholders slam an airplane to kill large number of opposing voting blocs. Wait a minute. Does that ever happen? Of course, no. Oh ya, in Syria it happens. Not in corporation.

It won't make sense.

Can the states be governed as efficiently as Apple? Can that be achieved through democratic means?

Not only it can be done, we're going there.

Think about it. Why are we prosperous now? Why are western civilization is very prosperous for the last 300 years?
What is it? IQ? Nah. Chinese have higher. Peace? You kidding me? We got armed missionary living on people's house in France to force protestants to embrace Catholicism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonnades
Okay relative peace I suppose. But that's more of symptom rather than the cause.

Why is europe, and the rest of the world is getting advanced?

Because the market is governing the states more and more.

Imagine if the states are like the corporations competing for businesses, smart talented people, jobs, investments.
First, I will tell you it's a good thing. Second, I will tell why it happens in western civilization first and why it's happening now to all of us.

Why is this a good thing?

A long time ago Zeng He travels around the world and report to one Chinese Emperor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He At that time, the Chinese have better technology than the Europe.

You can see https://fthmb.tqn.com/rxzvTULRjDmgic3YD9XWiwNh7eY=/640x480/filters:fill(auto,1)/ZhengHesShipbyLarsPlougmannFlickr-56a040e65f9b58eba4af8b6c.jpg to see the relative size of Chinese ship compared to Europe. It's a good biz. Trade is good.

Then what? What did the Chinese do? Trade again? Send Zeng He 2, Zeng He 3, Zeng he 4.0? What?
The Chinese stop foreign trade.

Why?

You can read more here https://www.thoughtco.com/why-did-the-treasure-fleet-stop-195223
But basically, the Confusian think that businessmen are bad. The emperor is afraid that some businessmen are going to be richer than the emperor himself. So, they ban it. And then what? Then it just stops.

Compared to Columbus, for example. It is said that Columbus applied for a loan from the Portuguese King for his voyage. Portuguese king rejected his request and he asks for a loan from the Spanish king. He was given the loan and off he went.

There is a pattern, again and again, in this world.

Entrepreneurs build wealth, only for rulers to bring them down. Yet, when rulers must compete with one another, entrepreneurs are assured that all the productivity they build will not be robbed by rulers. Competing rulers are like entrepreneurs themselves. They too end up creating wealth rather than destroying it.

And that's how Europe prospers. The rulers are not united. That is why we prosper. Because there are 194 states competing for capital, for entrepreneurs, for talented people. We have little fear from rulers because on top of those rulers, the market governs all.

China fails to advance. Europe got rich. We got colonialism. They almost literally rule the world. Fortunately, or unfortunately, their disunity also brings another issue. European wage war against one another. Two world war latter, the rest of the world are free from colonialism. Well that's another story. Enough to say that now, we have many states competing with one another.

It is extremely difficult to get rich if rulers do not compete. That one ruler will simply literally kill you for being too rich. We have Chinese emperors mass murdering 10 generations of family just because a scholar disagrees with him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_familial_exterminations

Yet, when rulers compete, people can be productive. If some rulers are too crazy, you just pick a different ruler. One Ming emperor stopped all foreign travel and the whole Chinese stop colonizing the world. One king reject Columbus, a much more reasonable action, and Columbus can just raise his middle finger slap h is buttock and go to another king.

Yes, the European system is friendlier for the poor too. The Chinese entrepreneurs cannot go outside China even if they have capital. In Europe, rulers fund capital to entrepreneurs that want it.

Just like the Ming dynasty prevent sailing outside because they fear merchants will be richer than the emperor, the majestic welfare parasites do not like entrepreneurs getting richer and richer. But we do not need to listen to their bigotry.

If government raises minimum wages, factories simply move to China. If government raises tax, IT companies simply move to some tax haven. Now, people can productively create wealth with little fear of government oppression.

Why does this happen?

We can think of the state as a business. Whoever in power wants to maximize their "market share". In China, there and the rest of the world, there is little barrier of entry. So, if one emperor has say, more advance, "defensive technology", that one emperor will just capture the whole market share. We can think of Mongolian horde as a startup that capture the whole market share of protection business.

In Europe, the king has the same mentality. Except that they are prevented from doing so due to language barriers and mountain barriers.

And now? States also have the same mentality. Except that we have nukes to ensure shit really hit the fan when super powers attack each other. Imagine you strap bomb in your house so any intruders coming in are death. Then no body intrude to your house and you don't get robbed. The result is a win win for everybody.

That is why Mafia kills their members who snitch. The purpose is not to further weaken their number. The purpose is so people don’t snitch. When nobody snitches, the mafia makes more money and spend less time in jail as a whole.

Huge cost of war for both sides give incentive and improves probability of peace. Infinite cost of mutually assured destruction maintains our current peace. Well, sort off. A game theoretic analysis says that the bigger the cost of war, the less the average cost of it. People simply don’t wage costly wars.

Wars happen because one side thinks he can screw another and getting away with it. That doesn’t happen as easily as it used to be.

How does the market govern the states and in what ways the market benefits the people?

Let's start with democracy. Democracy is fine. It's not a bad system.

Say the population have different idea what the tax rate should be. Let's presume that it is evenly distributed. Some libertarians believe in 0% tax and some communists believe in 100% tax.

Under pure democracy they vote for a candidate. Usually, to capture the most vote, a candidate, will aim for a moderate policy. Say 50% tax rate. What will happen?

Well the libertarians are not happy. The tax rate is 50% from what they wish. The communists aren't happy either. The tax rate is 50% off from what they wish. Only a small voting bloc, the swing voters are happy. We call this phenomenon median vote theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem

This can go on and on pretty much anything. At least on tax we can discuss why things go wrong. What about religion? Sunni vs Syiah, Protestant vs Catholic? We know what happens. Civil war. Like the one in Syria. Each believe, with little evidence, that they are correct and the other are heretics.

So what would be a solution?

Say the original state is split into 2. Now the 2 states may be weaker militarily. However, it's not too bad. We don't usually have war anymore remember?

Now, the 2 states compete economically. Say one of the state is more libertarian than the other state. So, half of the people move to the moderate libertarian state and another half move to the moderate communist state. Let's call moderate libertarian state monarchist and moderate communist state social democrats.

In the libertarian state, we got people wanting 0-50% rate. Again, the median voters win. The tax rate is 25%. In the social democratic state, we got people wanting 50-100% state. So, we got a 75% tax state. Now, nobody is perfectly happy.

Some pure libertarian wants 0% tax but the tax is 25%. Some pure communists want 100% tax and the tax is only 75%. But it's better. They can both move from states they don't like to the state they like. Each will be better off in their respective states.

Before, people are on average about 25% off from their ideal tax rate. Now both are on average only 12.5% from their ideal tax rate.

What will usually happen is that the low tax state will be rich. The high tax state will be poor. Fast forward 20 years. We got poor commies wanting to move to a rich state. What will happen? The rich state simply say no.

The rich state says no because they want to provide jobs for their middle class. Another inefficient solution.
But should the rich state say no? What about if the rich state gets paid for accepting people?

That is what's happening in US now. US is relatively more libertarian, hence, relatively rich. Many wants to move to US and US government simply say no. Then what? Then taxi drivers and almost every occupation is more expensive in US than in China.

Think about the world's GDP as a whole. Is it efficient to let expensive American wash dishes for $20 an hour when the same job can be done by an African for $.25 an hour? It doesn't make any economic sense. But that's what happens due to government.

So what would the market do?

First, jobs are moving to China from US. Another is globalization. Then we have bitcoin, a non-regulated global currency, as an alternative to government's infested currency.

Then America will simply sell off its citizenship. Currently it's done by giving citizenship away to investors.

Then like stocks getting dividend, rich countries start giving citizen dividend to its citizen. So, the states behave more and more like corporations.

The similarity and differences are pretty obvious.

There is another way to see benefit of making states more corporation like.

Imagine 2 neighboring states with 100 population each. Imagine blue color loving and red color loving live on those states. The happiness of each people depends on the number of people that share favorite color with them. Another factor is the amount of welfare they got from their state.

As we know, every democratic states have some form of welfare. It may comes on true welfare. It may comes as subsidy. It may comes as jobs creation. All those are limited resources and cost more than what they produce. So, the model isn't that far off.

Say the states provide reasonably good protection service, freedom, and contract enforcement. Foreigners invest in those states. The state, for simplicity sake, tax foreign investors and distribute the money equally to all citizen. This is not another far off assumption. States need investors and productive elements and those productive elements often have "choices". Corporations and investors can move to other places, for example. So amount of welfare is limited. One gets more, the others get less.

Currently, the happiness of each person is 1049-1051 points. In a blue state Each got 1000 happiness based on welfare. Each live in a state where 50% of the people have the same favorite color with them.

Now, imagine if the states are like corporation. Replace citizenship with shares and welfare with citizen dividend.

Say one of the state have 51% blue loving people. The other state have 51% red loving people. What would happen? The blue loving people will join their brethren in blue state. The red loving people will join their brethren in red state. Everyone just maximize their interests. In a red state, the happiness of a blue people is 1049 points. In a blue state, the happiness of a blue people is 1051. And via versa.

Every single blue people will move to blue state and improve their happiness. The more migration happen, the bigger the happiness disparity between blue people and red people. So even more people move.

So, in blue states, we have all the blue people. Their happiness is 1100 points. 100 points from citizen dividend and 100 points from being in a blue state. Both people, the red and blue become 1100 points happy.

Now imagine democracy. Everyone got welfare, which gives 1000 points of happiness. Now, a blue people wants to move from a red state to a blue state. What will happen? The blue state will reject that.

When that one person move from red state to blue state the welfare have to be divided into 101 people. Their happiness due to welfare becomes 990 points only. They got 51.4 extra points of happiness. So total happiness of people is 1041.4 points. It's a drop from 1051 points.

And this is what happens in most democracy. When a country gets prosperous, it becomes welfare state and it rejects immigrants.

Both countries can improve their happiness. It's pareto optimal. No body is worse off. And yet, it's not happening.

Yes the blue people is slightly happy that another blue people is coming. But their happiness is offset by their less welfare. The same way people can't leave from blue state to red state.

There are 3 solutions. One solution is to allow market of citizenship. Blue people sell their citizenship in red state, and use it to buy citizenship in blue state. Another is to allow people to receive welfare even though they live in another state. Say a blue people live in red state. They still get dividend even though they live in blue state. Later if they like it, they can exchange their red citizenship state into a blue citizenship.

Another solution is to just jot down how many people wanting to move from one state to another, look at supply and demand, look how many people the states are willing to accept, and charge money differences when people move. If too many people want to move from red state to blue state, then those doing that will pay. The same way those who go the other way around got paid.

Notice, citizen dividend, unlike welfare, have many other benefits. Welfare, for example, gives people incentive to be poor. This may not seem like a lot. However, most welfare program has an aim to make sure everyone have some basic "need" covered. What does that mean? Welfare ensures that even the least productive members of society can reproduce.

Citizen dividends do not have that problem. You get the same amount whether you're rich or you're poor. I think the poor would know that their standard of living will improve sharply if they postpone having kids. Those financially prudent can use their citizen dividend to start a business and expand their biz faster. The rich will produce more kids and more kids will have richer parents. This will eliminate poverty far more effectively than welfare.

What's still different?

Well, we can see what is still different between the states and the corporations and see why it's toward the best interests of the rulers of the states to make their states more "corporate like".

Most stockholders in corporation can sell their stocks. Most citizen in the states cannot sell their citizenship. But would being able to sell citizenship a good idea? Think about it. Look at your fellow citizens. Are those citizens profitable for you? Look at the welfare parasites. What would cost less for your state? Keep feeding those parasites that will breed more parasites from cradle to grave or just pay them to leave your state?

For many states it's cheaper to just pay people to let go their citizenship. So, people pay to get into more well governed state. They get paid to leave. How much? Well, it would be the market price of residency or citizenship I guess.
If citizenship and residency can be bought and sold at market, both will have "market value". This will carry some benefits.

Currently, each people would argue and argue that they are right and the other is wrong? The religious argues that the states should be religious. The secular argues that the state should be secular. Why argue?

May be neither are right and neither is wrong.

Do we argue what color of shirt we should buy? You like blue shirt you buy blue shirt. You buy red shirt you buy red shirt.

Do we argue that the blue shirt is the right shirt and the red shirt are heretics?

Why argue? The same way, you like secularism you move to secular countries. If you hate secularism you go to religious countries. Currently there is a catch. Say you've been paying tax and the government have built tons of stuff with your tax. Say the governments build tons of roads.

Then one day your state changes from secular to religious and via versa. If you leave your state, you lost ownership of those state. Immigrants coming to a state will happily enjoy the infrastructure built on the state he's coming in even though he's not paying for it.

Currently many people want to leave their states but no other states want to accept them. So instead, they tried to change their state to their liking. While doing so they make their other citizens unhappy.

Citizenship market will change that.

You move to another state, you don't lose ownership of your state. You can just sell it. Then you use the money to buy citizenship/residency from a country that you're coming too. The states can simply charge visitors residency to cover the costs infrastructures.

Currently most states do not have citizen dividend. Most voting bloc tries to get some benefit from another bloc by voting for the state to side with their interests. That's why we have farm subsidies. The farmer votes so that government gives money to farmers. Then blue-collar workers vote so the state do not let immigrants taking away their job.
With citizen dividend and citizen market value, all citizens will have similar interests. That is, they will all want to maximize the return they got from their citizenships.

Poor countries can get tons of investments. They can just sell citizenship or states' share to investors. The investors can have stronger vote. Anyone wanting to build a more libertarian country can simply found a very bad country, buy citizenships from those states and make some deals with the current citizens.

In corporation customers do not make companies produce what they want by changing the company. The customers simply move from companies to companies. It doesn't make sense to force a big entity, like corporation, to please every customers whim. Customers are taken care off well by the companies. Companies produce what customers want. Otherwise customers just go to different companies.

As customers I understand that companies do not produce products exactly like I wish. Companies produce products that are wished by many people. I buy product by picking the one closest to my preferences.

The same way, there is no such thing as I wanting to live in a country perfectly like I wish. I need to find a state where the population and the share holders have the same preferences with me. Then I can move there.

In fact, the ideology of the shareholders may be less relevant. A secular state can have some religious stakeholders and via versa. All that matter is we understand that the share holders’ interests are served if they provide a state that serve the interests of the population.

The stockholders in the company worry about increasing sell. The stockholders do not care too much whether they like the product or not. A stockholder of a bible printing company may be an atheist. All a stockholder care is whether customers are willing to pay for the product and whether such products can be produced cheaply.

Here, decisions how to run corporations is done by those with the knowledge and interest to do so. As someone using Microsoft product, I don’t even know how Microsoft is governed. I only know that Microsoft produce products I want.
Customers know what they want more. CEOs know best what to do to make money for the corporation. And the result is a workable system that please CEO, stockholders, and customers.

The same way, immigrants do not have to worry about voting for the states. Many tourists are coming to many countries without fear of being oppressed by their destination. Why should they? If oppression happens, they just go somewhere else. Corporations are incorporated in many states. Those corporations do not run the states. Well, not officially at least. But they have little fear. If there is any sign of trouble or law uncertainty, they just move money away.

It's up to the stockholders, and the citizens to worry what investors, tourists, and valuable immigrants want. It's up to them to ensure that the states can get good revenue from all those.

Another difference that I notice between the state and the company is how stocks are distributed. In company, you get a stock, by contributing to the company or by buying stocks. In states, you get citizenship by doing something totally worthless.

US government, for example, give away free citizenship to anyone born in US. What happens is we have hordes of cradle to grave parasites that just breed and breed. The more they breed, the citizenship they got. I think US citizenship is worth around $100k. So many parasites produce more and more children knowing that they got $100k worth of something for each child they produce.

To counter this, the tax payers come up with so many ways to make life truly shitty for the unproductive.

Gee... So inefficient.

Why not just grant citizenship based on purchase? Want kids? First 2 is free. Want more start buying more citizenship? Have less? Get paid. That would be another way to do so. I think that will be happening too.
Also, why limit one citizenship for each person? Okay for now, that seems fine. After all, the state is not like corporation in one very fundamental ways. The state can use force and fraud freely. Currently, allowing someone to have more than one share of citizenship will allow some corrupt rulers to simply grant himself millions of citizenships share. We see this again and again. Dictators pretty much gain power dishonestly. Well, in the future though, when the market has moved well, this will probably be less of an issue.

Another that's already happening is some people having multiple citizenships. So, some people can vote in several different countries. This people will be happy. Currently, the main way to enjoy the benefit of citizenship in a country is to leave there. With citizenship market value and citizenship dividend, you will get the benefit of the growth of several states at once. The ROI of buying citizenship will probably about the same with the ROI of buying corporate shares.

People owning stocks on 2 or 3 different countries will promote peace too. Imagine someone holding both Israel and Palestinian citizenship. Do you think that kind of people want the 2 countries to go to war against each other?
C’mon.

Finally. Will the world be more capitalistic or socialistic?

I think both. Taxes will be lower. The poor, will however, be richer. That's because resources are allocated more efficiently. There will be extra profit that both the productive and the less productive can share.

Imagine a programmer automating 1000 jobs. Shouldn't that programmer earn 300 times the salary of 1000 normal laborers?

Under current systems, in US, normal blue collar jobs are artificially raised by preventing competition from foreign workers.

If I were an American, I wouldn't code. I would just drive bus. Why would I risk learning to code for years if my salary will only be 2 or 3 times the salary of driving bus. Productivity will improve if those who are 1000 times more productive gets paid 1000 times. That's the only way we motivate people to be productive.

What about those who can't code? Will they starve? There is actually something they can do to improve productivity.

They can vote to make their state even more capitalistic. Will that benefit them directly? No. However, if the state itself is like stocks, and their state prosper, they will either get more citizen dividend or can sell their citizenship at higher price. They will be just like all other stockholders. They will get it as long as their state is more well governed than other states.

So there is indeed something typical citizens in any country can do to make the world more productive. They can vote for capitalism even more. Then investors and immigrants will flood their state with money. They can tax land and charge for residency. Voila. Money. The money can be distributed to shareholders, that include the original citizens.

Income tax will be gone. There are just too many ways to avoid it now we have bitcoin and XMR. The states will be governed efficiently because otherwise productive people will simply leave. Huge competition among states will keep tax to minimum. Most things that are prohibited, like liquors, or even tax, will be taxed instead. Why prohibit something if you can just tax and make money out of it.

Countries will be managed efficiently. The people can more easily see that countries with easy regulations will have higher market value. Obviously, shareholders, will want their countries to be governed efficiently.

Mismanaged state will have low valuation. Investors with better ways to govern people will of course acquire such states first

Currently, many politicians can bullshit their voters that they are governing well, even though they don't. When citizenship have valuation, all citizens can see their citizenship valuation and know whether their states are governed well or not.

If immigrants want to come to your state, that means your state are being run more efficiently than other competing states. The citizenship value will go up. It will go down if population wants to get out. Simple check and balance system right?

Examples:

There are 2 samples of very well managed states that practice some of the principle here. Dubai and Singapore.

In both states or countries, salary disparity is huge. This huge salary disparity motivate their population to do what's actually wanted by the market.

Dubai receives a lot of immigrants that are not citizens. They simply make money by using those immigrants. They then transfer the extra profit to their citizens.

Singapore also have huge income disparity. Singapore is richer than US per capita by now.

Each of those 2 countries is a bit racists. Dubai only allow Arab muslims to be citizens. Singapore favor chinese as citizens. Both countries also criminalize many victimless acts.

However, anyone that doesn't like it can simply choose to find another country. When other capitalistic countries are plentiful we don't have to worry a lot.

Also certain states are simply not a match for certain population anyway. Perhaps there is some productivity too in allowing people to hang out with those similar to them? I don't know. I think charging money for residency right is a much more fair and efficient ways to get things done than racism.

There is no one right model for every state. Think of going to a state like going to Disneyland.

You simply don't watch striptease in Disneyland right? For that "sort of thing" you just go to other places.

The same way, it doesn't make sense to go to Dubai and complains about their preferences for giving citizenships only to muslims or go to Singapore that favor chinese or to Israel that favor jews. Just go to countries that match you.

The same way, there are many countries in the world. If we can make everyone of those countries to be competitive for investors and productive workers, you do not need to worry if they deviate from this and that ideals. You simply go to different countries for different purposes.