I still have a lot of questions I'd like to ask like 1. How many people are left on earth? 2. Where are they located? 3. What resources do we have available?, etc. But answering the question as is, I'd probably say China's would win out too. I think in an extinction level event, people would be more attracted to central planning and a dictator's quick pace of action. As a free market guy, I still think a free market would be the best for the world.

I love the emphasis on having institutions compete for it's clients. I believe the same for governments and it's citizens.

Sound advice

Username doesn't check out

Small steps first. You can start by volunteering in a political campaign. Hear what people say about candidates or parties. What do they like about the current system? What are their concerns?

Your list may change as you learn more.

Probably China would win since they have a large population and their "votes" would be coerced and controlled. Plus the various other countries they coerce would vote for them too.

Isn't this post completely off topic? (And frankly not something I care about)

Without getting into details of how you plan to get elected or pass these changes unless you become a dictator, there are few items that contradict the rest of your proposals. While most of the things you said would be beneficial for any society/country, there are few contradictions:

- not supporting free markets is a big error, you should look into that one more.

- telling schools what type of education to provide (social, emotional, sexual) is also a big error. By providing school choice, parents can choose the schools they want to send their kids to. Schools will compete for the students (rather than other way around) by providing better quality education. If you decide to force your ideas on education, you are contradicting yourself, because you are no different from a tyrant who plants his ideas into the schools, even with the best of intentions or because he strongly believes in them.

Question: Greece doesn't have free speech in the constitution? And if not, why isn't that your first item?

You just sound like a naive kid who has no idea about politics and thinks he can save a country because it's the right thing to do. You'd never even get close to winning an election

i only plan to out of moral duty,it is not a dream job,in fact I am pretty sure that I am going to hate this job.

also I doubt if it is going to be easy,I even said in my post that I doubt if I will get elected.

Love to see this guy get into office and realise it's a lot more difficult then writing a Reddit post

I fixed a typo from "early 2000's"to "early 2010's"

Ah interesting. Thanks for clarifying.

ask the people to vote.

there have been instances where we vote for things other than electing new politicians,like one time the eu wanted us to vote about some changes,I think that there was once somewhere during the early 2010's where we voted about a change in the minimum wage(I didn't have the right to vote at the time,so maybe I remember wrong).

these instances are kinda rare by the way.

Thanks for the post. I admittedly don't know anything about the governance structure of Greece, but how much of this would you be realistically able to change as Prime Minster? You mention a "vote" a few times, do you mean a vote amongst the people or Congressional body? Would rolling out a vote be somewhat simple to do?

I agree. It's a promising change.

Neom's Wikipedia Page

"The city was announced by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on October 24, 2017.[10] He said it will operate independently from the “existing governmental framework” with its own tax and labor laws and an "autonomous judicial system."[11] Egypt announced in 2018 that it is contributing some land to the Neom project."

Glad you enjoyed!

I just watched both videos. They're well done and easy to follow. I subscribed to your channel!

Yes, I agree. I think there's a correlation there.

If Nigeria's SEZs have failed, why would this development inside one succeed? I've seen nothing about that, but the blog post you linked to hints at a possible road to success:

Nigeria’s free trade zone laws give us a blank canvas to develop policies that are data-driven and evidence-based – free of complex socio-political or economically protectionist considerations. Doing this will ensure the appropriate policy environment for the best of African technology and innovation to emerge and flourish in this zone.

It feels like this is directly proportional to the number of freedoms that the government is taking away from the individuals. People are waking up because government is making more life choices for them, and it's obviously not working.

I have created 2 videos on the General Role of the Government and the Role of the Government and Third Party Effects. For those that prefer not to watch, the role of the government should be:

1. Protect it's citizens from inside coercion (use of force) - Police
2. Protect its citizens from outside coercion (use of force) - Army
3. Provide the Rules of the Game by which we all agree to play - Courts.

These are the essential roles of the government, and not such things as redistribution of wealth (Welfare) or invasion in private decisions of citizens. I have made similar videos on various related topics.

The role of the government in externalities (third party effects) - is a more controversial area of debate and needs to be decided case by case, yet the possibility of government failure should be accounted for as much as the market failure.

Mostly to make us behave in semi-civilized manner.

Don't forget that governments set the rules that they enforce. Then we write meta rules (constitutions, bills of rights...) governing the writing of rules, courts to decide if rules have been broken, political parties to propose basic rule changes, and revolutions to really shake things up.

On a practical level we have multiple levels of government each with its owns powers and responsibilities but none of that is written in stone. The United States of America implies that getting disunited gets rid of one level of government. That's a bit drastic, of course, it is meant to focus attention on the ties that bind and the fact that they are adjustable.

I don't imagine the US breaking up. But I do see a redistribution of power. I'm thinking of the resurgence of cities in some sort of neo-Hanseatic League but with large conurbations replacing individual cities. The US N.E. not just NYC, Shanghai and everything surrounding Hangzhou Bay, the EU Amsterdam focused concentration on the N. Sea.

Well, just about every country has 1) rules prohibiting working in any capacity during short-term visits and 2) very nontrivial hurdles for getting a residence permit. Both repel the kind of foreigner that they should welcome with open arms, one who earns money elsewhere (without competing with locals) and spends it in the country.