I can promise you my love of knowledge is bright and receptive. I've read the federalist papers and the writings of many who claim to be the intellectual successors of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison.
If only the US were a democracy instead of a representative republic! But, given the standard human condition, we still coalesce into tribes. Be it based on race, religion, hometown, shared career, you name it, we form blocs. These blocs then either innately or in response to other blocs seek to gain power (heck, that's what political science _is_, the study of acquisition of power, and it's far from a solved question). So the fairy dust solution of "everyone" being the minority represented doesn't really hold true in the real world.
Thus, given these constraints, I conclude a for-profit-society is more transparent and navigable than a profit-for-society. If one were to assume that everyone else lived a profit-for-society life, then one defector would be able to manipulate the entire society to their personal aims. Though I strive to live my personal life to a more noble ideal, I cannot assume everyone else will.
Your proposal is akin to the ideal anarcho-capitalists* have, in that states compete. As I understand the philosophy, judicial systems and police forces are private and distinct. Law is common-law, meaning it's not case based, but rather takes into account the accuser, accused, and the situation. The will of the court is then implemented via by a hired police force. The issue is then when courts and police merge horizontally and vertically. You then have a _de_ _facto_ state. It's unavoidable, and the answer is "Well, you obviously can't have a society where people are like that." This answer ignores the strategic human element. One cannot even call this behavior immoral, as it likely comes about with noble intentions.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I salute your goals.
*EDIT: anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), not socio-anarchists.
> I conclude a for-profit-society is more transparent and navigable than a profit-for-society.
That doesn't follow, though. This is just as much fairy dust as the notion of everyone having a fair and equal say into "the agenda": not everyone is motivated by profit. You can pretend that they are and model them to be such, but you're inevitably incorrect.
Now, you could force them to be for-profit. But if you could do that, you could also force them to be profit-for-society. Why do the former rather than the latter?
> If one were to assume that everyone else lived a profit-for-society life, then one defector would be able to manipulate the entire society to their personal aims.
This is the problem of the demagogue, or "why direct democracy doesn't work". My ideas are an outgrowth of a proposal for education reform precisely because this is the most necessary step. The most effective countermeasure to the demagogue that we know of is a two-pronged response: (1) information saturation, such that any lies or half-truths are easily exposed and (2) critical thinking, such that the demagogue finds zirself useful only for thought leadership, but not thought determination.
And while you might imagine that #1 is being reached by the Internet, and I agree that it has made significant leaps and strides in the right direction, it is not remotely enough. The Internet does not reach enough people, and of the people it reaches, we have filter bubbles and echo chambers.
> Your proposal is akin to the ideal anarcho-capitalists* have, in that states compete.
Absolutely not. Please don't read in things I didn't say. I am not a Social Darwinist, and I'd prefer not to be lumped in with those who are. The paragraphs I wrote in my vision only outline legislative mechanisms; they do not consider changes in the judiciary or in the execution of law.
If only the US were a democracy instead of a representative republic! But, given the standard human condition, we still coalesce into tribes. Be it based on race, religion, hometown, shared career, you name it, we form blocs. These blocs then either innately or in response to other blocs seek to gain power (heck, that's what political science _is_, the study of acquisition of power, and it's far from a solved question). So the fairy dust solution of "everyone" being the minority represented doesn't really hold true in the real world.
Thus, given these constraints, I conclude a for-profit-society is more transparent and navigable than a profit-for-society. If one were to assume that everyone else lived a profit-for-society life, then one defector would be able to manipulate the entire society to their personal aims. Though I strive to live my personal life to a more noble ideal, I cannot assume everyone else will.
Your proposal is akin to the ideal anarcho-capitalists* have, in that states compete. As I understand the philosophy, judicial systems and police forces are private and distinct. Law is common-law, meaning it's not case based, but rather takes into account the accuser, accused, and the situation. The will of the court is then implemented via by a hired police force. The issue is then when courts and police merge horizontally and vertically. You then have a _de_ _facto_ state. It's unavoidable, and the answer is "Well, you obviously can't have a society where people are like that." This answer ignores the strategic human element. One cannot even call this behavior immoral, as it likely comes about with noble intentions.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I salute your goals.
*EDIT: anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), not socio-anarchists.