Christian Henrik Nesheim：有離開的選擇，國家才會競爭？
From Subjects to Customers
影片
影片與逐字稿來源：Network State Podcast （CC BY）
場次摘要
Christian Henrik Nesheim 主張，人民若能遷居並選擇不同制度，政府才更可能把人當成需要爭取的對象。他以投資移民與遠距工作的增加，說明部分人已具備這種選擇。他引用過去十年投資取得公民身分與居留權的人數，但這些數字是講者提供，不能推論所有人都同樣容易遷移。
值得記下的 5 件事
- 可行替代選項與較低轉換成本，能增加個人面對大型機構的談判力。
- 公民身分、住家、企業與銀行都集中在同一國家，會提高離開的成本。
- 政府若面臨人才與資本退出的可能，可能改善條件，讓無法離開的人也受益。
- 遠距工作、低成本通訊與旅行，降低人才跨境移動的障礙。
- 軟體、品牌與專有技術比工廠與建築容易移動，資本結構會影響國家的談判力。
逐字稿
開場
大家好。我有五分鐘說明我們怎麼讓世界自由。請祝我好運。從根本問題開始：國家對個人並不好。它們對我們課稅、限制行動、監管我們，甚至徵兵送我们去打仗。Hello, everyone. I have five minutes to explain to you how we can set the world free. Please wish me luck. So let's start with the fundamental problem: states do not treat individuals well. They subject us to taxation, they restrict our movements, they regulate us, and they even conscript us and send us to war.
我們要回答的問題是：有什麼實際做法，能讓國家尊重個人自由與財產權？Crypto 是答案的一部分，但若你的 physical person 在 gulag，crypto 也幫不上忙。答案是更努力投票嗎？不行，原因現在沒時間細說。And the question that we need to answer is: what is a practical way of making the state respect individual freedoms and property rights? Crypto is part of the answer, but of course, crypto doesn't do you much good if your physical person is in, say, a gulag. Is the answer voting harder? No, doesn't work, for reasons we don't have time to get into right now.
我們需要不依賴多數人都有 good judgment 的策略。年輕時我以為答案是改變大家對政府的看法。誰花過時間精力，跟朋友家人 advocate individual liberty、smaller government 這類事？But we need strategies that don't depend on the majority of people having good judgment. When I was younger, I used to think that the answer was to change people's minds about government. Who here has spent time and effort advocating for things like individual liberty, smaller government, and so on with friends and family?
辯論難以爭取自由
舉手。手舉著，如果那通常有用。對，和我猜的一樣。我已接受：靠投票或辯論走向自由不會 work。那什麼才真正能帶來自由？Show of hands. Now keep your hand up if that usually worked. Yeah, that's what I suspected. I've made my peace with the observation that voting or debating our way to freedom is not going to work. So, what actually works in bringing about freedom?
我想，一句話，leverage。我說有 leverage 是什麼意思？什麼讓 powerful institution 尊重個人？是當那個 individual 有 options。我們從 consumer markets 就懂，對吧？options 多、switching cost 低，條件就好。options 少、switching cost 高，條件就差。Well, I think, in a word, leverage. So, what does it mean when I say to have leverage? What makes a powerful institution respect individuals? It is when that individual has options. And we understand this from consumer markets, right? Where many options and low costs of switching give you better terms. Few options and high costs of switching give you worse terms.
Netflix 以很低價格提供好服務，因為轉 Amazon Prime 很快很容易。DMV 兩者都不做。因為你还能去哪，對吧？大家都懂這原則適用於談判、商品服務、就業，甚至 dating market。Netflix provides good service at a very low price because switching to Amazon Prime is quick and easy. The DMV does neither of those things. Because where else are you gonna go, right? Now, everyone understands how this principle applies to negotiations, to goods and services, to employment, or even to the dating market.
從臣民到顧客
但它也適用 Free Cities Foundation 的 Titus Gebel 所說的 market for living together。多數人不把自己看成居住國家的顧客，所以讓自己被單一國家 monopolize。But it also applies to what Titus Gebel of the Free Cities Foundation calls the market for living together. Now, most people don't see themselves as customers of the country in which they live. So they've allowed themselves to be monopolized by a single country.
他們的家、citizenship、business、banking 都在同一國。當然那國對他們人生有 enormous leverage。它可以加稅、加監管、加限制，知道離開很難，因為 switching cost 高。結果多數人不是居住國的顧客，而是它的 subjects。They have their home, their citizenship, their business, their banking, all in a single country. And so, of course, that country has enormous leverage over their lives. They can raise taxes, they can regulate more, they can restrict more, knowing that leaving would be hard, because you have high costs of switching. And as a result, most people are not customers of the country in which they live; they are subjects to it.
subject 和 customer 的差別， simply 是你有沒有 options。若我們要國家給更好待遇，就要讓它們面對競爭。做法是增加有 easy options 的人數。The difference between being a subject and a customer is simply whether you have options. And if we want better treatment from countries, we need to subject them to competition. And the way to do that is to increase the number of people who have easy options.
帕累托法則與槓桿
這策略很棒之處是：我們其實不需要人人都有 options，多數人才能受益。甚至不需要多數人有 options 就能 work。因為 economic activity 高度集中。And the great thing about this strategy is that we don't actually need everybody to have options for most people to benefit. In fact, we don't even need most people to have options for this to work. And that is because economic activity is highly concentrated.
這是 Pareto principle，對吧？非常少數人，大概 2%、3%，就占超過一半的 investment、spending、tax revenue。所以國家不必在 absolute terms 失去很多人，就會失去 huge chunk 的 economic base。This is the Pareto principle, right? A very small minority of people, you know, like 2%, 3%, maybe, they account for more than half of all investment, spending, and tax revenue. So the state doesn't have to lose a lot of people in absolute terms for it to lose a huge, for the state to lose a huge chunk of its economic base.
其實，只是可能失去這些人，就夠讓國家改變 wicked ways。若我們給這小撮 minority credible alternatives 和 easy exit，國家 poorly treat individuals 就會 quickly 變得很貴。這就是我們的 leverage。當 competitive pressure 改善 everyone's terms，即使沒有 leave option 的人，也會從能離開者的自由中受益。And in fact, just the potential for losing these people can be enough for the state to change its wicked ways. And if we give this small minority of people credible alternatives and easy exit, then it quickly becomes very expensive for the state to treat individuals poorly. There's our leverage. And when this competitive pressure improves the terms for everyone, even the people who don't have the option to leave benefit from the freedom of those that do.
科技讓資本更流動
現在 technology 正在 supercharge 這 leverage，讓 talent 和 capital drastically 更 mobile。更多人可以 remote 經營公司、服務客戶、管理團隊。travel 和 communication 變便宜，living abroad、relocating 比以往容易。And now, technology is supercharging this leverage by making talent and capital drastically more mobile. So more people can now obviously run companies or serve clients or manage teams remotely. Travel and communication have become cheap, so living abroad, relocating, is easier than ever.
當然同時 capital 的 nature 也變了。Capital 過去 tied to geographies，因為 capital 過去是 tangible，mostly tangible，對吧？tangible capital 的問題是你 move 不了，很難 redomicile factory、building、heavy machinery。And of course, meanwhile, the nature of capital itself has changed. Capital used to be tied to geographies. Because capital used to be tangible. Mostly it was tangible, right? So the issue with tangible capital is that you can't move it. You can't very easily re-domicile a factory or a building or heavy machinery.
所以它們 stuck in place，只能接受 jurisdiction 開的 terms。Intangible capital 另一方面 easy to move。Software、brands、proprietary tech 幾乎可以在任何地方。And so they're stuck in place, and they have to just put up with whatever terms that jurisdiction sets. Intangible capital, on the other hand, is easy to move. Software, brands, proprietary tech, these things can live practically anywhere.
它們可以，如我朋友 Andrew Henderson 所說，go where they're treated best。看看過去幾十年、過去 50 年 capital composition、assets composition 發生了什麼。They can, as my friend Andrew Henderson says, go where they're treated best. Now look at what's happened to the composition of capital, the composition of assets, in the last several decades, in the last 50 years.
投資移民市場成長
現在全球最有價值的公司都 built on intangible assets。當 talent 和 capital 變 mobile，leverage 從 state 移到 individual。不是 politics，是 tech。不是 debating 或 voting 真正 moves the needle。The most valuable companies in the world right now are all built on intangible assets. And when talent and capital become mobile, the leverage moves from the state to the individual. So it's not politics, it's tech. It's tech. It's not debating or voting that actually moves the needle.
Investment migration 這個 market，IMI 的家，就是要 accelerate 和 facilitate individuals 與其 capital 的 mobility。這 effort 已經 well underway。And the job of investment migration, which is the market in which IMI has made its home, is to accelerate and facilitate the mobility of individuals and their capital. And this effort is already well underway.
過去十年 alone，350,000 人透過 citizenship by investment 取得 citizenship。另有 700,000 人透過 residency by investment 取得 residency，這只是買的人。其他方式取得 citizenship 和 residency 的人，數量再大一個 order of magnitude。In the last decade alone, 350,000 people have obtained citizenship by investment. A further 700,000 people have obtained residency by investment, and these are just the people that are buying it. Of course, people who get citizenship and residency in other ways, that's an order of magnitude greater, that number.
這數字每年成長。請大家想：若我們都有 multiple citizenships 和 residencies、都有 mobile assets、都有 plethora of welcoming jurisdictions 可選，政府會怎麼對待我們？我 bet 它們得停止像 ruler 對 captive subjects，開始更像需要競爭And this number is growing every year. And so I want you to ask yourselves, how do you think governments would treat us if we all had multiple citizenships and residencies? If we all had mobile assets, if we all had a plethora of welcoming jurisdictions to pick from, well, I bet they would have to stop behaving like rulers over captive subjects and start behaving more like businesses that need to compete
結語
for discerning customers 的 businesses。謝謝。為 Christian 鼓掌。非常謝謝。From subjects to customers。謝謝。for discerning customers. Thank you. Let's give a round of applause to Christian. Thank you so much. From subjects to customers. Thank you.
