Suppose you've got two political systems each vying for legitimacy. They each have their own currency, and their own set of policy outcomes.
Is it so laughable that whichever one achieves the best results for its users will be the one to establish both market and political dominance? Is letting such a competition play out via the value of their respective currencies any better than traditional means of resolving this kind of conflict (i.e. war)?
I'm not saying I have ultimate faith in the market to do the right thing--it frequently doesn't. But it sounds like you're saying that it can't.
Granted, BTC's political system involves allocating power based on who can waste the most energy--so it's a pretty laughable alternative to existing governments--but in principle I don't see why markets can't mediate the rise and fall political systems in a way that roughly mirrors the way that political systems mediate the rise and fall of companies.
There's that saying:
- Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
It seems to me that collectively changing whose currency we use based on their capacity for sound governance is the kind of peaceful revolution that we ought to strive for.