Diversity VS Biodiversity

[Galloism]

I don't see how the Holocaust would be less reprehensible if it were funded purely by non-Jewish Germans.

Let's consider three different possible cases of Holocaust funding...

Case VOLUNTARY

In this case, funding for the Holocaust would have been entirely voluntary. Germans would have had the opportunity to make donations to whichever non-profit was responsible for murdering Jews. If we assume that the free-rider problem is a real problem... then we can assume that Germans' donations/funding to the Holocaust would have been less than their valuations of the Holocaust. How much less? That depends on the size of the free-rider problem.

Case PRAGMATARIAN

In this case, German taxpayers would have had the option to allocate their taxes to the Holocaust. Jews and other sane people would have had the option to boycott the Holocaust. What percentage of the budget would have been controlled by sane people? A large percentage? A small percentage? According to Galloism, the free-rider problem is applicable to broadly beneficial public goods. Not sure if he would classify the Holocaust as narrowly or broadly beneficial.

Case COMMAND

In this case, which was the actual case, German taxpayers did not have the option to allocate their taxes to the Holocaust. Jews and other sane people did not have the option to boycott the Holocaust. The government determined how much funding the Holocaust received. According to Galloism, the free-rider problem would not be a problem in this case. If Galloism is correct then, the funding that the Holocaust actually received accurately reflected Germany's valuation of the Holocaust.

The problem was mass murder - who pays for it is irrelevant. Given the holocaust had significant (if not majority) approval of the German people, and made up a rather small percentage of Germany's overall budget, it would be just as likely under a pragmatarian system as a mixed economy.

What's needed is laws and rights that prevent this sort of thing, not some magical system of "I want to use X, but I don't want to pay for X, and you can't make me - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

The latter is what a petulant child would do.

Beyond that, some people are guaranteed to either be free riders or 'forced riders'. If you don't wish to fund some public good that you still benefit from, then either you don't pay (free-riding on those who do) or you do ('forced riding', in your terminology). You will always have one or the other.

According to the poll attached to this thread, space colonization should be our number one priority. Personally, I voted for diversity. I'm definitely in the minority.

Why even quote something if you aren't going to respond to it?

It's one thing for people to simply say that space colonization should be our number one priority. It's another thing for people to spend most of their own tax dollars on space colonization. The former is interesting. The latter is meaningful and trustworthy.

Of course it's not. Game theory demands it to be untrustworthy. Unless you have a magic wand to wipe game theory out of existence and prevent it from ever coming back, your system will always be more untrustworthy than the alternative.

People will always go for their personal benefit the most - even when the benefit of society suffers as a whole.

[Lesser Tofu]

Let's consider three different possible cases of Holocaust funding...

Case VOLUNTARY

In this case, funding for the Holocaust would have been entirely voluntary. Germans would have had the opportunity to make donations to whichever non-profit was responsible for murdering Jews. If we assume that the free-rider problem is a real problem... then we can assume that Germans' donations/funding to the Holocaust would have been less than their valuations of the Holocaust. How much less? That depends on the size of the free-rider problem.

And the Jews would still have been killed.

Case PRAGMATARIAN

In this case, German taxpayers would have had the option to allocate their taxes to the Holocaust. Jews and other sane people would have had the option to boycott the Holocaust. What percentage of the budget would have been controlled by sane people? A large percentage? A small percentage? According to Galloism, the free-rider problem is applicable to broadly beneficial public goods. Not sure if he would classify the Holocaust as narrowly or broadly beneficial.

And the Jews would still have been killed.

I suppose you could argue that the economic and social collapse that pragmatarianism would bring would stop the Holocaust from taking place, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the system as an improvement over what we have.

With the current system, voters aren't required to put their own money where their opinions are...

[-snip-]
As a result, the budget doesn't reflect people's values... it reflects their opinions.

Under your system though, it doesn't reflect the values of the populace, it reflects the values of the rich. You haven't really mentioned the plutocracy inherent in your "tax choice" regime, at least as far as I've seen.

Besides, what is the distinction between values and opinions? In either case, people put their support towards the thing they support. The difference is that under your system some things can end up vastly over- or under-funded, departments can't plan in any meaningful way (since they don't know their budget from one week to the next), people are best served by selfishly funding the things that only benefit them (as others will be more likely to fund things with collective benefit), and everything will generally collapse into chaos.

A fairer system, anyway, would be to give people the ability to dictate policy direction more directly (through regular referenda, for instance), so that the actions of the government more closely reflect the will of the populace. All that your system changes from that is giving the rich more of a say.

According to the poll attached to this thread, space colonization should be our number one priority. Personally, I voted for diversity. I'm definitely in the minority.

Here's what Hitler wrote in 1936...

[-snip-]
It's a perfect example of why it's problematic to allow one person to determine how to allocate a country's funding. The optimal balance can only be determined by taxpayers spending their own tax dollars. Maybe it's not the perfect way... but it's vastly superior to the current system.

It's one thing for people to simply say that space colonization should be our number one priority. It's another thing for people to spend most of their own tax dollars on space colonization. The former is interesting. The latter is meaningful and trustworthy.

This does not address what I wrote in any way.

The first half of this is an argument against dictatorship, not an argument against liberal democracy. The second half of this does not follow in any way from anything else you have said.

Why even quote something if you aren't going to respond to it?

Why do bears shit in woods? Why is the grass green? Why does Xerographica not respond to criticism his perfect system?

'tis the way of the world.

[The Nihilistic view]

Maintenance of the Golden Throne and Astronomicon should be our biggest priority.

For the Emperor!

[Xerographica]

Under your system though, it doesn't reflect the values of the populace, it reflects the values of the rich. You haven't really mentioned the plutocracy inherent in your "tax choice" regime, at least as far as I've seen.

The values of producers reflect the values of consumers. Are you going to voluntarily spend your money on something that you don't value? Nope. And guess what... you're the rule rather than the exception.

Besides, what is the distinction between values and opinions? In either case, people put their support towards the thing they support.

Values are based on sacrifice. Sacrifice is meaningful. It's meaningful how much society is willing to sacrifice in order to cure cancer or colonize space.

The difference is that under your system some things can end up vastly over- or under-funded, departments can't plan in any meaningful way (since they don't know their budget from one week to the next), people are best served by selfishly funding the things that only benefit them (as others will be more likely to fund things with collective benefit), and everything will generally collapse into chaos.

If for-profits and non-profits can plan in meaningful ways... then so can government departments.

A fairer system, anyway, would be to give people the ability to dictate policy direction more directly (through regular referenda, for instance), so that the actions of the government more closely reflect the will of the populace. All that your system changes from that is giving the rich more of a say.

It would certainly be fairer to give everybody more direct control over how the pool of tax dollars is allocated. The problem with this system is that the voters really didn't earn their influence.

Right now if I want your money then I would have to earn it. Or steal it. But I think we'll both agree that earning it is preferable. Then the question becomes... how can I earn your money? And it's a really good question. And each time you spend your money you help to answer this question.

If you could choose where your taxes go... would you spend your taxes on space colonization? I don't know. But I know that you'd put at least some thought into the question. And the thought that you put into the question would reflect all the information at your disposal. What if you weren't happy with the information at your disposal? Would you endeavor to acquire more information? Maybe? I'm pretty sure that there's a decent correlation between income and due diligence. Just like there's a decent correlation between grades and studying.

Taxpayers are the best at studying. Otherwise, studying really wouldn't be worth it. Do you want to make the argument that studying isn't worth it? No? Then you should appreciate the thought of the people who are the best at studying all having the opportunity to endeavor to figure out how to spend their taxes. The alternative is to argue that it's better for taxpayers to focus all their attention, diligence and brainpower on goods in the private sector. In case you missed it, directly allocating taxes would be optional. Who am I to decide whether your attention, diligence and brainpower is more needed in the private sector or the public sector? Who am I to decide whether your attention, diligence and brainpower is more needed in the for-profit sector or the non-profit sector? I don't even know you. And neither does your elected representative. So it should be entirely up to you to decide for yourself.

[Galloism]

I'm pretty sure that there's a decent correlation between income and due diligence.

Assertions remain not evidence.

In any case, evidence suggests wealth and unethical behavior are positively correlated.

Your system would give more unethical people more power. I don't want a government that's more corrupt and wasteful, which is what your system will logically lead to.

[Xerographica]

I'm pretty sure that there's a decent correlation between income and due diligence.

Assertions remain not evidence.

In any case, evidence suggests wealth and unethical behavior are positively correlated.

Your system would give more unethical people more power. I don't want a government that's more corrupt and wasteful, which is what your system will logically lead to.

Evidence suggests that income and education are positively correlated. So if income and unethical behavior are positively correlated... then education and unethical behavior are positively correlated.

From the paper you cited...

upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed

Yet...

The poorer they are, says Vox’s Dylan Matthews, the more likely millennials are to support a government-guaranteed living wage, the redistribution of wealth, and an expanded safety net. - Corey Robin, 90% of what goes on at The New Yorker can be explained by Vulgar Marxism

[Lesser Tofu]

Ah yes, back to old times, where any time you can't address a criticism of your system (in this case that, despite your initial assertions, it doesn't actually stop events like the Holocaust from taking place), you just stop replying to that bit and hope it goes away. We should keep count of how many points you've failed to address over the umpteen incarnations of this thread.

The values of producers reflect the values of consumers. Are you going to voluntarily spend your money on something that you don't value? Nope. And guess what... you're the rule rather than the exception.

Spending money on things I need to live (accommodation, food, etc.) doesn't imply I think the people who provide those are necessarily good people, nor that I necessarily agree with their political views and want to give increased political clout.

Values are based on sacrifice. Sacrifice is meaningful. It's meaningful how much society is willing to sacrifice in order to cure cancer or colonize space.

Firstly, raw amount of money doesn't meaningfully express value -- if I have $10,000,000, then $1,000,000 isn't worth a huge amount to me (I'm fabulously rich with or without it), whereas if I have $1,000, $100 has a sizable effect on my quality of life.

Secondly, under your system people only pay a standard amount of tax -- you don't choose how much or how little you pay, just where it goes. Thus your tax choice becomes a weighted vote -- your allocation of it requires no more or less sacrifice then if you were given the opportunity to directly vote on the structure of the budget -- in either case you are simply 'spending' your political say. And of course, in either case allowing everyone to do this in an unlimited fashion will make it impossible for the government to produce a sane budget, but that doesn't seem to matter to you... You just have the added bonus of plutocracy.

If for-profits and non-profits can plan in meaningful ways... then so can government departments.

But

You detest the idea of people being able to push a button that instantly allows them to "exit" their tax dollars from any government organization.

That would imply that an organisation can't be sure of having the funds it has already been allocated.

Besides, no current organisation has its internal budget decided by its customers/donors/what have you. The case of private non-profits would be more closely represented by allowing people to choose how much tax they pay, but not to decide its allocation (that is, the exact opposite of your system). The case of current for-profits is different again, since your system allows people to free-ride (that is, use and incur costs on things provided by the organisation without paying for them), so the cost of running a particular program needn't bear any relation to the funding it receives. There is no current model for what you are proposing, quit pretending it's some sort of well-tested idea.

It would certainly be fairer to give everybody more direct control over how the pool of tax dollars is allocated. The problem with this system is that the voters really didn't earn their influence.

So you want plutocracy. Well, as long as you're honest about it.

Right now if I want your money then I would have to earn it. Or steal it. But I think we'll both agree that earning it is preferable. Then the question becomes... how can I earn your money? And it's a really good question. And each time you spend your money you help to answer this question.

Current evidence suggests that a really good way to get my money is to own residential property where I want to live, at which point you can pretty much charge as much as you can get away with.

And your arguments sort of make vague sense in a cute little world where regular workers shop at small, locally owned shops with owners who aren't vastly, disproportionately wealthy. But then we look back at reality, and notice that the super-rich are largely that way through exploitation of those under them, that people make fortunes massively disconnected from any regular consumer spending money, that most of the rich started out rich, and remember that those parasites at the top are the people you want to give even more political say. Those people are the ones who you complain society doesn't cater to enough.

If you could choose where your taxes go... would you spend your taxes on space colonization? I don't know. But I know that you'd put at least some thought into the question. And the thought that you put into the question would reflect all the information at your disposal. What if you weren't happy with the information at your disposal? Would you endeavor to acquire more information? Maybe? I'm pretty sure that there's a decent correlation between income and due diligence. Just like there's a decent correlation between grades and studying.

Really? Under the tax choice system, I would have less political power than I do now. Currently, I have 1 vote out of 34 million or so, under your system any semblance of power I might have is stripped for the fact I don't really have much money. Why would I care at all where my taxes go, if it didn't matter?

Taxpayers are the best at studying. Otherwise, studying really wouldn't be worth it. Do you want to make the argument that studying isn't worth it? No? Then you should appreciate the thought of the people who are the best at studying all having the opportunity to endeavor to figure out how to spend their taxes. The alternative is to argue that it's better for taxpayers to focus all their attention, diligence and brainpower on goods in the private sector. In case you missed it, directly allocating taxes would be optional. Who am I to decide whether your attention, diligence and brainpower is more needed in the private sector or the public sector? Who am I to decide whether your attention, diligence and brainpower is more needed in the for-profit sector or the non-profit sector? I don't even know you. And neither does your elected representative. So it should be entirely up to you to decide for yourself.

Again and again, you babble platitudes without a shred of evidence. You have never once given any evidence whatsoever that putting the allocation of the budget into the hands of the taxpayers would improve things.

On what basis do you argue that taxpayers, without any large scale coordination, with only what time they have left over from employment and such, and without necessarily being educated or informed about the purpose and structure of all the various government programs, will produce better results than people whose full time job is to analyse and calculate the effects of these programs.

Evidence suggests that income and education are positively correlated. So if income and unethical behavior are positively correlated... then education and unethical behavior are positively correlated.

That is not how statistics work.

From the paper you cited...

upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed

Yet...

The poorer they are, says Vox’s Dylan Matthews, the more likely millennials are to support a government-guaranteed living wage, the redistribution of wealth, and an expanded safety net. - Corey Robin, 90% of what goes on at The New Yorker can be explained by Vulgar Marxism

This does not imply the poor have a favourable attitude towards greed.

[The Islands of Versilia]

I think education should be our largest focus.

With more people with higher education, they'll be able to find ways to improve the world much faster than the rate the world currently is. Healthcare would be easier to get because of better medical technology, and space colonization would be a definite if everyone is scientifically literate. Everything else will simply fall into place.

National defence is not something humanity really needs. We'll get a lot of things done quicker if we just work together to achieve the goals humanity needs achieved.
With only 10% of the world's military spending, we could eliminate world hunger.

I'll leave some things here for you all.

[256 Shades of Grey]

Our number one priority should be civil and political rights.

[Galloism]

Assertions remain not evidence.

In any case, evidence suggests wealth and unethical behavior are positively correlated.

Your system would give more unethical people more power. I don't want a government that's more corrupt and wasteful, which is what your system will logically lead to.

Evidence suggests that income and education are positively correlated. So if income and unethical behavior are positively correlated... then education and unethical behavior are positively correlated.

From the paper you cited...

upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed

Yet...

The poorer they are, says Vox’s Dylan Matthews, the more likely millennials are to support a government-guaranteed living wage, the redistribution of wealth, and an expanded safety net. - Corey Robin, 90% of what goes on at The New Yorker can be explained by Vulgar Marxism

Wealth and income are not the same, and that's not how statistics work anyway, but maybe. You would need a study that proves it.

In any case, you want to give the unethical more power over the organization(s) which tries to ensure a minimum level of ethics and punishes those who violate it (civilly or criminally). You want to put the foxes in charge of the henhouse, basically.

[Xerographica]

Ah yes, back to old times, where any time you can't address a criticism of your system (in this case that, despite your initial assertions, it doesn't actually stop events like the Holocaust from taking place), you just stop replying to that bit and hope it goes away. We should keep count of how many points you've failed to address over the umpteen incarnations of this thread.

You want to try again? Ok.

Let's consider three different possible cases of Holocaust funding...

Case VOLUNTARY

In this case, funding for the Holocaust would have been entirely voluntary. Germans would have had the opportunity to make donations to whichever non-profit was responsible for murdering Jews. If we assume that the free-rider problem is a real problem... then we can assume that Germans' donations/funding to the Holocaust would have been less than their valuations of the Holocaust. How much less? That depends on the size of the free-rider problem.

And the Jews would still have been killed.

According to Wikipedia... approximately 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. If the Holocaust had been funded entirely by donations... how would this have changed the number of Jews killed?

A. More Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government really unnecessary)
B. The same number of Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government unnecessary)
C. Less Jews would have been killed (small free-rider problem, taxes/government a little necessary)
D. A lot less Jews would have been killed (big free-rider problem, taxes/government really necessary)
E. No Jews would have been killed (huge free-rider problem, taxes/government super necessary)

[Lesser Tofu]

According to Wikipedia... approximately 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. If the Holocaust had been funded entirely by donations... how would this have changed the number of Jews killed?

You're not defending your pet system here...

The Holocaust was by and large carried out by the German military, and given the war on at the time I hardly think the military would find funding hard to come by under your kind of system. As for the anti-Jewish measures leading up to that point, you again seem to have missed that Germany was heavily anti-Semitic at the time, so enforcement of those would again be politically viable under a tax-choice or donation system.

It's hard to say how it would change the numbers, because it's fairly unclear what you mean by "funded entirely by donations" -- do you mean that people have to donate directly to the program itself? Or to the military / police at large? Because the system you've been arguing for uses the latter, but here your argument seems to be based on the former. Allocation program by program is, in general, an even worse idea then department-level allocation.

And now you seem to have given up responding to anything else...

[Individual Concerns]

Diversity, bio or otherwise, only works for you if it has developed organically.
Diveristy is not an inherently positive trait, as a diverse pool of recessive traits or ideas can still lead you to an evolutionary dead end.

Forced cooperation or collectivisation never gives you the best emergent property, and sometimes will you yield you nothing but a stagnant soup of wasted potential.

No, the individual base components must come together freely and compete as well as cooperate to organically arrive at the most optimal system of production for the best singular effect.

This is as true in biology, as it is in human contrivance.

[Xerographica]

It's hard to say how it would change the numbers, because it's fairly unclear what you mean by "funded entirely by donations" -- do you mean that people have to donate directly to the program itself?

I'm sure that you've heard of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Just imagine a non-profit organization in Germany called People for the Unethical Treatment of Jews (PUTJ). The point of PUTJ would be to murder Jews. None of PUTJ's funding would come from the government. PUTJ would be entirely funded by donations from private citizens. Just like the KKK is entirely funded by donations from private citizens. Right now you have the option to make a donation to PETA. Germans would have had the option to make a donation to PUTJ. The more donations PETA receives... the more animals that are ethically treated. The more donations PUTJ received... the more Jews that would have been unethically treated. Obviously the German government would have condoned PUTJ's activities.

I hope it's abundantly clear now what I mean by "funded entirely by donations". So let's try this again...

According to Wikipedia... approximately 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. If the Holocaust had been funded entirely by donations... how would this have changed the number of Jews killed?

A. More Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government really unnecessary)
B. The same number of Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government unnecessary)
C. Less Jews would have been killed (small free-rider problem, taxes/government a little necessary)
D. A lot less Jews would have been killed (big free-rider problem, taxes/government really necessary)
E. No Jews would have been killed (huge free-rider problem, taxes/government super necessary)

[Xerographica]

Diversity, bio or otherwise, only works for you if it has developed organically.
Diveristy is not an inherently positive trait, as a diverse pool of recessive traits or ideas can still lead you to an evolutionary dead end.

Forced cooperation or collectivisation never gives you the best emergent property, and sometimes will you yield you nothing but a stagnant soup of wasted potential.

No, the individual base components must come together freely and compete as well as cooperate to organically arrive at the most optimal system of production for the best singular effect.

This is as true in biology, as it is in human contrivance.

I think I mostly agree with your theory. How would you apply it to government though?

[Individual Concerns]

Diversity, bio or otherwise, only works for you if it has developed organically.
Diveristy is not an inherently positive trait, as a diverse pool of recessive traits or ideas can still lead you to an evolutionary dead end.

Forced cooperation or collectivisation never gives you the best emergent property, and sometimes will you yield you nothing but a stagnant soup of wasted potential.

No, the individual base components must come together freely and compete as well as cooperate to organically arrive at the most optimal system of production for the best singular effect.

This is as true in biology, as it is in human contrivance.

I think I mostly agree with your theory. How would you apply it to government though?

By shitcanning every ideology that results in a 50% or greater public sector economy.

[Xerographica]

I think I mostly agree with your theory. How would you apply it to government though?

By shitcanning every ideology that results in a 50% or greater public sector economy.

So... out of all the political systems that are left standing... which one most closely matches your emergence theory?

[Lesser Tofu]

I'm sure that you've heard of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Just imagine a non-profit organization in Germany called People for the Unethical Treatment of Jews (PUTJ). The point of PUTJ would be to murder Jews. None of PUTJ's funding would come from the government. PUTJ would be entirely funded by donations from private citizens. Just like the KKK is entirely funded by donations from private citizens. Right now you have the option to make a donation to PETA. Germans would have had the option to make a donation to PUTJ. The more donations PETA receives... the more animals that are ethically treated. The more donations PUTJ received... the more Jews that would have been unethically treated. Obviously the German government would have condoned PUTJ's activities.

So you're no longer arguing that the pragmatarian system would prevent the Holocaust, and have now moved the goalposts to argue that the Holocaust would have been less effective if carried out by a separate, non-government-run organisation.

Can I take that as a concession that your system (i.e. the one you've actually been advocating, rather than the version it suddenly morphs into when convenient) would not prevent events like the Holocaust from taking place?

[Individual Concerns]

By shitcanning every ideology that results in a 50% or greater public sector economy.

So... out of all the political systems that are left standing... which one most closely matches your emergence theory?

Probably some variant of libertarianism.
Preferably not one subsumed by pot choked libertines.

[Lesser Tofu]

Probably some variant of libertarianism.
Preferably not one subsumed by pot choked libertines.

Note: the point of this thread (as with every other thread the OP has created) is to advocate a system of 'tax choice', in which one is required to pay some sort of standard tax rate, but is able to decide how it is allocated to the departments of the government.

[Galloism]

Probably some variant of libertarianism.
Preferably not one subsumed by pot choked libertines.

Note: the point of this thread (as with every other thread the OP has created) is to advocate a system of 'tax choice', in which one is required to pay some sort of standard tax rate, but is able to decide how it is allocated to the departments of the government.

Or programs or specific items.

Level of allocation: unclear.

[Xerographica]

I'm sure that you've heard of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Just imagine a non-profit organization in Germany called People for the Unethical Treatment of Jews (PUTJ). The point of PUTJ would be to murder Jews. None of PUTJ's funding would come from the government. PUTJ would be entirely funded by donations from private citizens. Just like the KKK is entirely funded by donations from private citizens. Right now you have the option to make a donation to PETA. Germans would have had the option to make a donation to PUTJ. The more donations PETA receives... the more animals that are ethically treated. The more donations PUTJ received... the more Jews that would have been unethically treated. Obviously the German government would have condoned PUTJ's activities.

So you're no longer arguing that the pragmatarian system would prevent the Holocaust, and have now moved the goalposts to argue that the Holocaust would have been less effective if carried out by a separate, non-government-run organisation.

You seem to understand my question... so why didn't you answer it? Maybe you need actual numbers? Ok.

According to Wikipedia... approximately 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. If the Holocaust had been funded entirely by donations... how would this have changed the number of Jews killed?

A. 10 million Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government really unnecessary)
B. 6 million Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government unnecessary)
C. 4 million Jews would have been killed (small free-rider problem, taxes/government a little necessary)
D. 1 million Jews would have been killed (big free-rider problem, taxes/government really necessary)
E. Zero Jews would have been killed (huge free-rider problem, taxes/government super necessary)

[Galloism]

So you're no longer arguing that the pragmatarian system would prevent the Holocaust, and have now moved the goalposts to argue that the Holocaust would have been less effective if carried out by a separate, non-government-run organisation.

You seem to understand my question... so why didn't you answer it? Maybe you need actual numbers? Ok.

According to Wikipedia... approximately 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. If the Holocaust had been funded entirely by donations... how would this have changed the number of Jews killed?

A. 10 million Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government really unnecessary)
B. 6 million Jews would have been killed (no free-rider problem, taxes/government unnecessary)
C. 4 million Jews would have been killed (small free-rider problem, taxes/government a little necessary)
D. 1 million Jews would have been killed (big free-rider problem, taxes/government really necessary)
E. Zero Jews would have been killed (huge free-rider problem, taxes/government super necessary)

It's really rude to move the goalposts to another planet.

[Xerographica]

So... out of all the political systems that are left standing... which one most closely matches your emergence theory?

Probably some variant of libertarianism.
Preferably not one subsumed by pot choked libertines.

Do you consider anarcho-capitalism to be a variant of libertarianism? I don't.

[The Great Devourer of All]

I believe we should just colonize as many planets as possible, and only take large reserves of the preserved reproductive cells of the most beneficial animals (cows, sheep, mules/horses, perhaps oxen and dogs) and plants (the most durable and versatile grains, fruit-bearing trees, vegetables, trees with especially useful lumber, grasses for feeding animals, and perhaps legumes). These plants and animals would be genetically engineered to be more resistant to disease, stronger, and to yield ideal numbers of babies/fruit/vegetables, and would be kept inside biodomes while the human colonists got used to living in the outside environment and using the flora and fauna dwelling in it to their benefit.