Can a completely free economy that conforms to the classical liberal ideal be successful?

There are two problems with this question. The first problem is the definition of the word, “successful”.  What do you mean by that?  The second problem is the conflating of two similar, but nevertheless separate and distinct, ideas: “a completely free economy” and “Classical Liberalism.".

While the answer to whether it will be “successful” depends on your definition of success, the problem of your conflation of the two ideas means that “a completely free economy" cannot be a “Classical Liberal” economy.  Classical liberalism traditionally requires some laws regulating trade, though these the minimum actually necessary to do so, and that furthermore such laws are neutral ones with respect to trade.  That means that while a classical liberal economy would not provide for a minimum wage law or for anti-cartel legislation, it also would not prevent the formation and functioning of labor unions.  Here is what Adam Smith wrote on cartels but which equally works for labor unions:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”

Now read this carefully because it isn’t something that most conservatives want to admit but this passage applies equally well to business cartels or to labor unions.  Both are anathema to liberty and yet legislating against either would also be anathema to liberty.  Instead the government should neither favor the producer nor the consumer in such matters.  As John Stuart Mill wrote:

“[T]rade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society... both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free, under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere. This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, qua restraint, is an evil...”

Yet, even still, what to do about what we refer to as “natural monopolies”, those ones that naturally would arise out of a monopoly?  Well, Adam Smith has an answer there as well:

“A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate.”

Now notice what this would entail if carried forth properly.  There could be no government monopolies granted, such as you see in cable television, water, sewer, etc.  So does that mean that we have a “completely free economy”?  It certainly sounds like it, right?  However, go back and read what Mill write, “under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere.”  Where monopolies do arise, for whatever reason, there is definitely a right asserted under classical liberalism that such monopolies can be regulated.  Thus, while governments ought not grant monopolies, I see nothing in Smith, Mill, Ricardo, or any other proponent of classical economics and classical liberalism that monopoly power cannot be checked to some degree.
There are further limitations placed by classical liberalism on trade even though it is not something we always put forth.  Classical liberalism does not allow for force or fraud in economy dealing or political matters.  Certainly if I am not allowed to defraud you that is a limitation on my “freedom” but that is because freedom itself cannot be used to infringe upon the freedom of others.  Similarly, you do not have the “freedom” under classical liberalism to break contracts without being liable to being hauled into court and forced by the government to provide compensation based on the harm that you caused the other party.  Classical liberalism in these regards simply does not allow for a “completely free economy.”

So let’s get back to your original question, as asked.  Yes, an economy based on classical liberalism absolutely can thrive and indeed, the ideals of classical liberalism are found (for the most part) in America’s founding document, the US Constitution, and these same ideas were present in Great Britain during the first half of the 19th century.  The problem occurred not with classical liberalism but rather from deviations from it.  The major industrial companies that rose in the latter half of the 19th century obtained their monopolies through government intervention initially by the railroads (countermanding the express argument that monopolies ought not be granted by government).  Interestingly, the classical liberals had a solution to such matters as well.  Please read Adam Smith, once again, on infrastructure. If you read this carefully, you will find that Adam Smith, while preferring private ownership to public ownership, nevertheless did not allow such infrastructure to be billed out without some regulation as to its pricing:

”When the carriages which pass over a highway or a bridge, and the lighters which sail upon a navigable canal, pay toll in proportion to their weight or their tunnage, they pay for the maintenance of those public works exactly in proportion to the wear and tear which they occasion of them. It seems scarce possible to invent a more equitable way of maintaining such works.”

So that helps us take care of bridges, highways, and railroads.  Note that even if private owners were
put in charge of such things, classical liberalism definitely allows for regulation of the pricing of infrastructure.

What about “natural monopolies”, those parts of infrastructure that naturally would occur and how do we deal with the case where individuals cannot pay the costs of such infrastructure, what then?  What about, for example, individual streets within a city?  Does it make sense to set up a toll road everywhere?  How about the provision of water or sewer service where we wish to provide it to the poor for purposes of health and safety and yet the poor cannot afford it? Once again, Adam Smith provides the answer:

“Even those public works which are of such a nature that they cannot afford any revenue for maintaining themselves, but of which the conveniency is nearly confined to some particular place or district, are always better maintained by a local or provincial revenue, under the management of a local and provincial administration, than by the general revenue of the state, of which the executive power must always have the management. Were the streets of London to be lighted and paved at the expence of the treasury, is there any probability that they would be so well lighted and paved as they are at present, or even at so small an expence?”

So, we have taken care of the problem of monopolies (do not grant them or if you cannot avoid them due to the natural monopoly occurring, do not allow their monopoly to be used to fleece the public but instead require their monopolies to be in service to the public).  We have also now placed capital and labor on equal footing by allowing both cartels and unions and thus checking each group’s power against one another (though we should not encourage the formation of either).  We have stopped trade based on fraud or misrepresentation.  What else is there?

Are you worried because workers aren’t going to be paid enough to live?  Whose fault is that?  Do the workers not have the right under classical liberalism to form a union?  They do such a right.  Do the workers not have the ability to work elsewhere?  They do have such an ability.  Furthermore, do not forget that if you set up a law that provides that workers are guaranteed a minimum income, what about the workers who work for themselves?  Should they not be guaranteed a minimum income? Why are they disadvantaged in such matters merely because they work for everyone rather than for one person? What about the capitalists?  Why are they not guaranteed a minimum profit?  After all, most owners of businesses today make little or no more than workers do because businesses are small sole proprietorships.

Are you worried that people will not be able to rent?  You should know that classical liberals detested landlords arguing that “they made money in their sleep.”  Yet how would you deal with it?  If you regulate the rent to be charged, the landlord can merely refuse to rent but instead will sell.  That will ensure less space for the poor and more for the rich.  Once again, do people not have the right to move elsewhere?  Do people not have the right to buy their own property?  Do people not have the right to do with their property what they will?

It is the fundamental restrictions on liberty that leads to economic desolation.  Look at what happened after “land reform” in Zimbabwe - the bread basket of Africa became a wasteland of famine.

Zimbabwe's Man-Made Famine

Really, my question would be to turn this whole question around: is it really possible to say that societies that have eschewed classical liberalism can be successful?

The fact is that prior to classical liberalism become the mainstream political thought in the 19th century, living standards for ordinary people worldwide had been stagnant for thousands of years.  The ordinary Londoner in the 1750s was only marginally better than the ordinary Roman at the time of Jesus:

“Until 1500, as best we can tell, there had been next to no growth in output per worker for the average human for millennia. Even in 1800 the average human had a material standard of living (and an economic productivity level) at best twice that of the average human in the year 1. The problem was not that there was no technological progress. There was. Humans have long been ingenious. Warrior, priestly, and bureaucratic elites in 1800 lived much better than their counterparts in previous millennia had lived. But just because the ruling elite lived better does not mean that other people lived any better. Only after 1800 do we see large sustained increases in worldwide standards of living.”

Source:
Delong - Economic Growth and History

What happened when classical liberalism was in ascend during the 19th century was astounding and it continued well into the 20th century:

“Average rates of material output per capita, which grew at perhaps 0.15 percent per year between 1500 and 1800, grew at roughly 1 percent per year worldwide between 1800 and 1900 and at an average pace of about 2 percent per year worldwide between 1900 and 2000.”

Now it is properly noted that classical liberalism was in retreat in many nation states between about 1930 and 2000.  However, it remained the major force for global trade restriction reductions that have driven economic growth in most  countries and have propelled our worldwide income increase in the past 70 years.  Today, we are starting to see the manifestations of a retreat not only at the nation-state level but also on the global level in terms of free trade.  This should worry all of us because it is the (fairly) unfettered ability to trade freely that has lifted economic standards for billions.

You might not like the distributional consequences of classical liberalism but no system is perfect.  Yet, all classical liberalism actually did was unleash economic growth.  How that growth was distributed was the result of societal structures that transcend the classical liberal framework.  Yet rather than rectify these societal structures that have little to do with classical liberalism, we create laws that restrict the very economic growth that has lifted billions out of poverty. Those of us who are classical liberals would argue that the cure for such distributional consequences may be worse than the disease.

So how would this classical liberal “fix” the distributional consequences?  The easy and desirable answer from my perspective is not to do it at all.  Distributional consequences are a natural byproduct of liberty and is it not better to have more than you otherwise would (and we all have more thanks to the ability to freely trade) even if your neighbor has much, much, much more?  Why are you so concerned with what other have rather than just be thankful that you have more than you would have under a system that restricted, or even worse, eschewed, individual liberty?

However I realize that is not a satisfactory answer for most people.  That is why I favor, if I must do something about it, the promulgation of a negative income tax (aka guaranteed minimum income).  What I am not willing to do, however, is provide bountiful public services and subsidies across an array of goods because I personally think that the poor ought to have them.  Give them money and allow them to decide for themselves what they want, whether it be healthcare (beyond certain minimums such as provision of vaccines that protect us all and emergency care that really is not a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller, both able to go to a competitor if a meeting of the minds cannot occur), food, or shelter, all of which are now provided to some degree by the state through direct intervention, subsidization, or voucher programs.  If someone wishes to have a smaller living space in order to eat a little more, who am I to say otherwise?  Who am I to dictate that one must eat a certain proportion or amount of foods and if those foods are not to nutritional standards, even if they are still food, who am I to say that you cannot have such food?  After all, I do not place restrictions on what the middle class may procure so why am I assuming that just because someone is poor that somehow they are also mentally incompetent?  Similarly, who am I to dictate that you may not reside in a particular home because I deem it of squalor when I am not willing to preclude everyone regardless of income  from doing the same.  When we place restrictions on what one consumes, solely on the basis of income and the fact that someone is granted something from the public purse, is this not the very height of arrogance and hostility to the poor?

Would your answer change if you were somehow legally obligated to those 200 people? Say you were a doctor who was in charge of those people?

My thanks to dhruv on a most excellent question!

That does APPEAR to pose a problem, doesn't it?  However, then the question is a Hobson's Choice: you clearly have a legal obligation to your own family as well!

Let me pose you a different question: would you save one of your children over another given that if you do not choose, you lose them both?

Can you be found morally wrong for choosing one life over another when you cannot save both?  I actually do not think that you can.

Such was the issue in the movie, Sophie's Choice, and her choice haunted her for the rest of her life.  However, the choice to give up the daughter rather than the son to the Nazis was not the real dilemma.  It was her willingness to engage with the vile Nazi in the first instance.  By attempting to curry favor with evil, she caused the loss of her daughter.

Still, what you ask is an excellent question.  I am not a believer that one should merely do things because the law demands it - after all, the law itself could be immoral.  If I strictly chose to follow the law in all matters, that would have made me a deontologist when it comes to ethics.  Instead, I evaluate things through three different lenses and ask three different questions:

1. What does the law require of me?  In the case of your question, the law requires that I save both but I cannot save both.  If I help the 200 random strangers, I have actually committed murder of my child.  If I help my child, I have actually murdered 200 random strangers.  While one has more people than the other, the piling on of murders is, strictly speaking, not a legal question but rather a question of consequences, which I will detail in the next question I would ask. As such, the law's requirements are immaterial. DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS DOES NOT HELP ME HERE.  Note, however, I would still argue that under natural law, I owe a greater allegiance to my own kin than to any stranger, so deontological ethics actually STILL suggests that the very question itself is wrong - I cannot owe a greater legal responsibility to others than to my own flesh and blood but, for the sake of argument, I will allow us to consider this equal balancing of responsibilities and see how it plays out.

2. What about the outcome of it all? Pure utilitarian ethics suggests that I ought to save the 200 random individuals, I am obviously not a pure utilitarian. Still, the problem is that I now have a legal obligation to both groups.  Having earlier rejected the saving of 200 random strangers, we now must weight carefully this decision.  From that utilitarian calculus, it would strongly suggest that we ought to value 200 lives over 1.  CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS SUGGESTS HELPING THE 200 PEOPLE.

3. Could I respect my decision later?  If I were to choose the random strangers over my own child, I could not respect that decision.  I would consider myself to be a bad person for having done so.  I would not in the least regret the loss of life of 200 to save my 1 child provided I have merely refused to assist as opposed to actively decided to kill.  VIRTUE ETHICS SUGGESTS SAVING MY CHILD.

So now I have the ultimate issue for me: I use a three-legged stool (deontological ethics, consequentialism, and virtue ethics) approach to ethics.  When all three are in alignment, I know that what I am doing is ethical.  When two of the three are in alignment (as in my previous example), I know that it is more likely than not that it is the correct decision.  When I have a split, ethical considerations suggest that neither side is more ethical.  It ceases (for me) to be an ethical question at all. That means that I would still choose my child.  If it is not a question of ethics, then it is not unethical to do so.

Yet, your question does pose an interesting alternative scenario: why I am willing to allow 200 people to die but not to even actively murder even 1?  Let us return to how this differs from when I said that I would not murder another to save my child:

The real point would be whether I am legally obligated for the murder of my child or not if I refused.  I a madman is holding my daughter hostage and demanding that I kill someone else or else he will kill my daughter and assuming that I literally cannot take action against the madman (always the preferable course of action!), then the question is: would I be legally responsible for her murder if refused to carry out the murder of say ONE people to save her?  The answer from a legal perspective is clear: I would not.  Thus in that case deontological ethics says "don't murder", consequentialist ethics is neutral (one life is no different than another - but note that if there is the murder of more than one, the calculus decidedly goes in favor of the strangers), and virtue ethics also says "don't murder" because while I would love to have my daughter in my arms, I would definitely not be able to respect my decision to murder 200 people even to save my own child.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, let us consider the perverted regime where the law and morality are not in alignment.  This is really the only scenario where I make an "unethical" choice from the perspective of my ethical framework:

You see if my legal obligation is to strangers MORE than my own kin or even EQUAL to my own kin, I would have to say that the "law is an ass" in the case.  I would now have to appeal to natural law over manmade law.  Once again, under natural law, I owe nothing to others except in the special relationship that exists within the family.  As such, I would never owe a duty to 200 strangers that could possibly override my duty to my own family.  That is how I would "solve" this "problem".

From Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

“Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity.

He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquility, as if no such accident had happened.

The most frivolous disaster which could befall him would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own.

To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others?

It is not the soft power of humanity; it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love. It is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct. It is he who, whenever we are about to act so as to affect the happiness of others, calls to us, with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions, that we are but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it; and that when we prefer ourselves so shamefully and so blindly to others, we become the proper objects of resentment, abhorrence, and execration.

It is from him only that we learn the real littleness of ourselves, and of whatever relates to ourselves, and the natural misrepresentations of self-love can be corrected only by the eye of this impartial spectator. It is he who shows us the propriety of generosity and the deformity of injustice; the propriety of resigning the greatest interests of our own, for the yet greater interests of others, and the deformity of doing the smallest injury to another, in order to obtain the greatest benefit to ourselves.
It is not the love of our neighbour; it is not the love of mankind, which upon many occasions prompts us to the practice of those divine virtues. It is a stronger love, a more powerful affection, which generally takes place upon such occasions; the love of what is honourable and noble, of the grandeur, and dignity, and superiority of our own characters.”

Would you rather save your child and let 200 random strangers die, or save the strangers but let your child die? Why?

I save my child. Every single day I “let” thousands of people die because I do not save them. That doesn’t mean I could save them but I still did nothing to try to stop them from dying and I do not think a second about them. However, my children are precious to me and I would do anything I could to save them that does not involve murdering another*. If I am in a position to save a person at no risk to anyone else other than myself I will try to save them but if I am asked to choose between one or more individuals, I refuse to employ an objective utilitarian calculus based on pure numbers. If I have to choose who to save it is based solely on their relationship to me. If the two groups are of no importance to me, I will choose the group that is easier for me to save. If saving them requires equal difficulty, my choice will be whichever group is to my right (because I am right-handed), even if that group is smaller in number. After all, the life of those 200 strangers you saved could include a child who grows up to be just like Hitler while the child would died would have grown up to be just like Gandhi and if you consciously saved Hitler and allowed Gandhi to die using a utilitarian calculus based on the greatest number of individuals to be saved, how could you live with yourself?

*Refusing to intervene to save someone is not murder in most cases. I have no legal duty to save the life of another person except for someone who is legally connected to me such as my child. In other words, my legal (as well as moral) duty is to save my child and not the 200 random strangers.

You have 10 minutes to go back in time to talk to a younger you. What do you say?

I don’t. While it might be great to tell myself what the winning lottery numbers are or about what stock to pick or how to deal with relationships, simply talking to my younger self could invoke a serious time paradox that would cause the entire universe to be destroyed. After all, the action of talking to myself would have one of five consequences:

1. I listen to myself and thus change my life in such a way that there is no reason for future me to talk to past me, so that future me does not talk to past me, so that past me does not hear from future me, and the whole exercise never happened in the first place.
   
   2. I listen to myself and thus change my life in such a way that there is STILL a reason for future me to talk to past me, so that I have to do this whole episode AGAIN and we stay in this loop until either outcome 1 or outcome 3 occurs.
   
   3. I do not listen to myself and do everything the same anyway, which means I just wasted 10 minutes of my future life.
   
   4. My past self listens to my future self but this causes a creation of multiple universes with my past self doing really well but my future self never realizing any such benefits because I did not affect my past self in this universe but merely spawned a new one.
   
   5. The entire fabric of the space-time continuum collapses onto itself resulting in everything falling into the void.
   
   My money is on the fifth outcome.

Press a button and a child dies but the world lives. Don't press the button and everyone dies. Which one would you choose?

Yet another Quora Answer:

Let’s think this through logically, okay?

The child dies as well if you don’t press the button. Hmm…. First of all, how long do I have and why can’t I just convince the child to press the button himself or herself by pointing out that it really isn’t suicide when either way you die. It isn’t like the child can live if the button isn’t pushed and that way I do not have to condone murder. Nope, that’s not satisfactory.

Another possibility is that I will somehow figure out how to switch places with the child so that when I press the button, I take only my life and Everyone Else Lives™. After all, I truly have only the right to kill myself and no other. Still, that does seem rather unsatisfactory.

No, actually I think that the best way to solve this problem is to call the bluff of the person who claims that failing to press the button will somehow cause everyone to die. The person who designed such a evil question must surely have realized that he himself/she herself and all of his/her progeny will die. That means that there are only five possibilities here that in my time-limited state I can properly assess and give subjective probabilities to so that I can assess how I should react:

(1) the person is an incredibly smart individual to have figured out such a device and also realizes that he/she wants to live and so the entire button pushing exercise does not actually kill everyone. Thus all I have to do is find the person who designed the contraption, figure out how he /she saves himself/herself and then replicate the world over. Thus Everyone Lives™

(2) the person is an incredibly smart individual to have figured out such a device and WANTS everyone (including himself/herself to die) but since not everyone is ALREADY dead, the person should have realized that he/she had not yet figured out a foolproof way to kill everyone and so it is unlikely that the device will actually work (come on, admit it, how many inventions in real life actually worked as expected on the very first try? The answer is very few — I will take my chances here). The chances that Everyone Lives™ is very high regardless.

(3) the person is a psychologist who did not properly vet his/her human subjects experiment with his/her relevant Institutional Review Board. Such an experiment is undoubtedly fake and so Everyone Lives™

(4) the person is incredibly smart and just wants me to have to make an immoral choice but is not so evil as to actually cause someone to have to die. Once again, I refuse to participate and Everyone Lives™

(5) the person hasn’t really properly thought all of this through. That means that contrary to my original belief that they are incredibly smart, they are actually incredibly dumb and I do not have to worry about the button at all. Everyone Lives™

In other words, I just shake my head at all of the highly immoral, evil individuals on this planet who would push the button and I REFUSE to push the button under any circumstances. I didn’t kill everyone and I didn’t kill the child. The evil person who designed this experiment did the immoral killing. Why if I had access to such a button, I would just . . . never mind. That highly immoral, evil thought just exited my brain because I just can’t bring myself to do it.

What Would I Do If Everything Were Free for 10 Minutes?

I recently wrote the following on Quora in answer to the question, "If everything was free for 10 minutes, what would you buy?"  I actually think this is one of my better answers on that forum:

Everything is free, right?

Let’s start with the assumption that I can only have things that you CAN really theoretically acquire and hold because someone already owns it (so no, I can’t take the world’s air, world’s water, sun, etc.). Let us further assume that I get to keep everything I acquire. Then the answer is simple:

I take over every world government as well as acquire all weapons on the planet and then install myself as World Emperor.

What? You are saying I can’t do that? Sure I can. How do you think world leaders come to power? The only difference here is that I would be the ONLY world leader.

Of course, I will be a dictator. But I will be a benevolent dictator. There will be no more wars because I will own all government. Now everyone has to work together. Everyone will, of course, give me 100% approval ratings in all polls. Oh, and all government debt is hereby abolished. I need a clean slate. What? You don’t want to approve of my rule? That’s okay. This will still be a free world. Just remember, if you don’t agree then you do realize that I also own all the nuclear weapons, so don’t argue with me or Everyone Dies™. I see you are all in agreement now.

First thing we do is get rid of all those pesky tariffs and trade barriers. We are all one world now. No more borders. No need to worry about all those immigrants coming over to “your country” because there aren’t countries any more. There is just one world government. Under me.

Next, everyone is getting capitalism. None of this communist or socialist stuff. You want something, you have to pay for it. Except for me. I can have anything I want because I have the resources of every world treasury. Yes, I will pay you for your things. I am not a cruel dictator. Still, it is good to be World Emperor.

I am going to be reducing taxes by a LOT. Remember I have all the weapons. I don’t really need that much defense spending any more. Don’t really need too much law enforcement. I suppose we still need a little law enforcement but things will be much easier for a while without anyone having any guns. Yeah, I know my friends all thought I was a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment and all that but hey, if I’m the world emperor I don’t want anyone getting any ideas and shooting me or anything. Sorry gang, you can’t have any more guns. On the plus side, you probably don’t need them because the criminals don’t have any guns either. Remember, I took ALL the weapons.

Oh, and feel free to smoke all the pot you want. All drugs have been legalized. Prostitution as well. Same with gambling. All liquor laws except for those that allow those under the age of 21 to buy liquor are hereby abolished. Those of you in Quebec and Ontario, stop complaining about me raising your drinking age. Don’t worry about the Mafia, the Triads, the Yakuza — remember I took ALL the weapons, so organized crime no longer exists. But don’t get any ideas about marrying underage girls because the age of marriage is now 21. NO EXCEPTIONS. At first I was going to raise it to 18 but I really want to ensure that all women in my new empire get an education and are able to live on their own without having their families pressure them into marriage. The key to reducing population growth and increasing world income is to have highly educated women.

Speaking of education, I will return education to local control. Yes, that means I will let you all have local government. Not national government, mind you. There are no national governments and no state governments. Only my one world government. But I can’t literally do everything for everyone, so almost everything is being returned to local control either at the city or county level or both. However all tax revenue has to come to the central world government for redistribution strictly on the basis of population. Remember I got rid of all borders so people can go anywhere they want now. Knowing that your tax dollars will automatically be redistributed to every corner of the globe might ensure that all of you see fit to adopt my new libertarian/classical liberal philosophy that government is best that governs the least even at the local level.

Similarly, health will be returned to local control. Well, except for two things. I’m sorry but everyone has to have vaccinations. I just can’t have global pandemics in my new world order. Also the government will provide emergency medical care free of charge but only for real emergencies. Anything that can go to the urgent care unit goes to the urgent care unit.

I will honor all current pensions and retiree health benefits but we are going to start changing this system. I own everything and I do not want to have to raise taxes on all of you to pay for it. You all need to start taking care of yourselves going forward unless you are already in the system or over the age of 50. Those between 50 and 55 will get a 75% reduction in future benefits. Those between 55 and 60 get a 50% reduction. Those between 60 and 65 will get a 25% reduction. I can’t really ask you to play catchup as much then but those of you under age 50 certainly can. Remember I am also eliminating all social security/Medicare/Old Age Pension, etc. systems.

We are getting rid of income tax. I never liked filing taxes and I think that VATs are more effective. It will be on EVERYTHING and at a single LOW flat rate (probably about 10%). That’s so that we do not have efficiency issues. I know, you are thinking that isn’t enough to run government but look at all the stuff I eliminated from government (and read ahead for even greater reductions). I will probably generate a surplus every year. Of course, I do not have to pay any VAT. We are also going to have a death tax. Sorry folks but that which you tax you get less of and I want less death. I will start the death tax out at 10% of all assets. The death tax may be paid out in cash or in company stock if you have a business. Remember if too many of you are dying, I will be forced to conclude that the death tax is not high enough, so I might have to raise it. I, therefore, suggest keeping death to a minimum. It is good to be World Emperor.

Local governments may only institute a single tax on land, not property. That is the most efficient type of tax.

Oh, and I don’t want any more internal squabbles. Freedom of speech? Sure there will be freedom of speech. Maybe not so much freedom AFTER the speech if you criticize my policies, but . . . Just kidding. Well, sort of kidding. You can criticize anyone else but not me. Remember, I am World Emperor.

All websites must now install Be Nice, Be Respectful rules. That, of course, means that no lèse-majesté (insulting or showing disrespect to me) under penalty of Everyone Dies™. So glad that everyone is nice and respectful, at least towards me.

Oh, I know what you are thinking. Here I am invoking Everyone Dies™ and I do not own the trademark to it. So what? Is David Consiglio Jr. going to sue me? He can’t. I can invoke sovereign immunity to all lawsuits. Nope. I get to do whatever I want. Laws do not apply to me. It’s good to be world emperor.

Businesses? You all can have businesses. I am going to massively deregulate and eliminate all labor laws with the exception of worker safety laws, but don’t take advantage of the situation by trying to defraud people or refusing to pay workers what you promised them. I am a believer in contracts and contracts will be enforced. You are going to have to have clear labelling and tell people EXACTLY what you are selling. Stop whining about that. Business taxation is gone except for the single tax on land and the VAT. Don’t like the level of your single tax on land? Take that up with your local government.

No more welfare or unemployment or the like. I massively deregulated businesses. There are lots of jobs available. I will not pay you not to work. Go for it. Plus I also eliminated a whole bunch of taxes, so there should be a lot of charity available for the poor.

Religion? Hmm. Well, I think they all have to register with me. I will still allow people to have religion but no criticizing my rule from the pulpit or trying to install your religious laws at the local level. Oh, and you will have to stop with this ridiculous notion that people of other religions are going to hell. You can think it but stop trying to convert people with that nonsense. Come to think of it, stop trying to convert people, period. If someone wants to join a religion, they go to you from now on, you don’t go to them. I will let you advertise of television or in print, but none of this door-to-door stuff or trying to instill prayers in places other than your places of worship. Remember, criticize me and Everyone Dies™.

What about Laws? All laws that are based on offense to others (with the exception of lèse-majesté) are GONE. All laws based on harm to self - GONE. All laws based on harmless wrongdoing - GONE. Well almost gone. I do intend to protect the children, so no contract can be entered into by any child under 21 and children may not be prostituted or given drugs or alcohol. Parents will be responsible for their children until age 21. Come on people, I am a classical liberal libertarian, not an anarchist. Heck, I can’t be an anarchist. After all, I am World Emperor.

You should probably hope and pray that I never actually get the ability to be World Emperor (hint: it isn’t just me — you do not want ANYONE to become World Emperor because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unless you want me to have that power. Then, of course, hope and pray that I get it. After all, life could be a whole lot worse. Most people would not be anywhere near as kind as I am, as you can see from many of the other answers to this question.

Luckily, however, I have some great news! I have been to the future and have seen what the future actually is. This entire exercise was quite prescient in a way. Everything I tell you WILL come true in time. Therefore, I strongly suggest that you state your total and absolute agreement with this answer. Don’t believe me and plan on not state your total and absolute agreement with this answer? Not a very good response I would say. This is really the ultimate Pascal’s Wager - and you know that I exist. Just remember, when I become World Emperor I will go back and see who state your total and absolute agreement with this answer and you will be favored. Fail to state your total and absolute agreement with this answer and bad things will happen.

You see, I am keeping a list of people who view this but who fail to state your total and absolute agreement with this answer. Anyone who fails to state your total and absolute agreement with this answer needs to understand that if I ever become World Emperor, I will use that list. Not telling you for what. But let me give you a hint about it: Everyone Dies™

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you want to purchase a really funny book, I strongly suggest you purchase Spoiler Alert: Everyone Dies™: The Lighter Side of Global Annihilation.  I didn't write the book (I wish I had!) but I do think that it is one of the best books I have read in a long time.  You can purchase it at:

 https://www.amazon.com/Spoiler-Alert-Everyone-Lighter-Annihilation/dp/154289302X