[more_than_value] is a priority to entice an opposing party to voluntarily agree to pay for product/services rendered.

Not so for government, since it can claim its taxes from individuals involuntarily. Where do I get to choose not to pay taxes to stop supporting the current political insanity?

Governments have been around for much longer than corporations. They are hardly a reaction to corporate violence.

But I agree that governments are in practice a sort of mega-national-corporation. Which demonstrates the folly of trusting government to reign in corporations - it's asking a wolf to police the wolves. Government is the greatest threat to your liberty; keep it on a short leash.

Microsoft can offer you a crappy OS with every PC you buy, but the government is the one that can put you in jail. Expanding government power to protect you from the Microsofts and Apples of the world is counter-productive.

Men aren't angels, and the ones in government are no exception. Just to clarify that this is not innocent government corrupted by evil corporations, but men in both government and corporations working for their own selfish benefit.

Charters are acquired from some authority. Like a government.

With government's monopoly on force, all corporations that force their customers to buy their products do so by bribing or becoming the government. (rent/buy monopoly on violence)

To get back to wealth creation, the distinction is between the wealth creation of voluntary and involuntary transactions.

Voluntary transactions requires an offer of greater value to entice agreement. Involuntary transactions can resort to strongarm tactics, and so offering greater value is a lesser concern and often skipped. .

"Hacking Altruism" makes it sound like you're trying to exploit people's sense of altruism for some other goal.

"Altruistic Hacking" captures the idea that you're hacking for the benefit of other people.

Who do you think gave your power company a local monopoly? It may well be the most practical solution, but you can't ignore that government is involved and is enforcing that particular solution. Power company goons don't come to your house to force you to do business with them. Your local/state government passed laws regulating how power is sold in your area, how it will be connected, to what power standards, and uses its police power to enforce those laws.

A democratic government does get feedback from its people, but over a 1/2/4/6 year election cycle, depending on the exact country you live.

The longer feedback loop allows a lot more inefficiency than a short one. Those inefficiencies add up and result in government activity not producing wealth where a profit-minded business could have.

It's easy to not tip or not give business to a restaurant with poor food/service. It's not so easy to elect a new government to improve DMV service.

Which makes it important to give the right work to the right organization.

Not all work is equal. Money spent doesn't necessarily cause net wealth to be created, or no company would ever go bankrupt.

When a company goes bankrupt, they cease engaging in non-wealth producing activities.

Governments do not suffer the same restriction. Some governments do go bankrupt; but they are able to use their monopoly on violent force to keep things going for longer than they should.

Yeah, the magic of labels.

That and the fact that the government collects that money by force, while the corporation has to give you enough value to make you voluntarily trade money for their product. Slightly different incentive structure there.

It's all the same if you throw out all the differences.

Are you trying to thought experiment this driving style, or have you actually tried it?

If you left a car-sized gap in front of you - you don't have to slow down at all for someone to merge in!

Now, the driving style would rebuild that gap - but you don't have to do it instantly - you let off the accelerator and build a new gap over 5~10 seconds, which limits how soon another car can "cut in". If someone wants to merge in every single time you leave a gap, your lane is faster than the adjacent lanes - which indicates you are *not* slower than traffic.

"people merge every time I have a gap" and "slower than traffic" do not mix. Either you are slower than traffic and people stop merging, or people are constantly merging and you're faster than (overall) traffic.

To maintain the same distance in front of you, you are driving the same speed as the car in front of you. How is that the wrong speed?

If there is a constant stream of people merging into your lane - your lane must be faster, or it's their exit. If it's not their exit, there is no reason for them to merge into your lane when you're slower.

The only way your lane is faster while you are going slower is if there is a giant gap in front of you - in which case they should be merging into your lane to distribute the traffic load.

How the hell does an internet retail company develop a monopoly?

Pass laws banning brick and mortar? Hack their competitor's websites? Buy out UPS and FedEx?

Please read what I'm saying more carefully.

At no point have I said women should not get job skills. My every response has been to point out that it is worthwhile and reasonable to suggest she pick up home-making skills (ex: home econ).

That is not equivalent of "don't learn any job skills" in any shape or form. Homemaking IS a job skill; it can be used in a paying job, as well as to support a family. This interpretation of "learn home econ/homemaking" as "be useless" is utterly illogical.

Thing is, how many women want to die alone and barren, but with a well-paid career?

Obviously it'd be great to have a husband and kids and the well-paid career - but given a choice between one or the other, I think most women would pick the former.

Telling girls that they should pick up those skills is on average going to be a net gain. The few who 100% want nothing to do with men and do so for their entire life are the only ones who would "lose out" by picking up these skills. (As if they don't need home-making if single)

Having some home-making skills does not exclude one from picking up job skills.

Staying married is a state.

Picking a husband worth keeping is a skill. Developing habits and capabilities that make one desirable to such a husband is a skill.

All careers are risky - and I'll note that most divorces are initiated by women, the "hotter replacement" risk is lower than it seems.

The question is if the risks and rewards are in line with one's values and desires.

They have a psychological advantage raising kids in the early years. Giving birth is not irrelevant, especially given the current legal system.

Being desirable for marriage and staying married are both skills. A poor homemaker may end up getting "fired" (which is not that frequent) - but so can a poor software developer.

How exactly do you plan to outsource child making to the public school system?

How effective do you think the public school system is at replacing parents?

Last I checked, men don't have wombs. Or breasts.

I guess at some point there'll be artificial wombs ... but still, men who want children need a woman. And if they're halfway competent, they'll want her to keep mothering them.