a logo for expansionist free equitism

Expansionist Free Equitism: A Manifesto for Rational Progress

The stakes could not be higher. We stand at a crossroads between a future of unprecedented human flourishing and a descent into authoritarian chaos. The choice before us isn’t merely theoretical — it’s existential. And we’re getting it wrong in nearly every way imaginable.

But here’s the plot twist: We actually have all the tools we need to fix this. The solutions are hiding in plain sight, obscured by tribal politics and muddled thinking. What we lack isn’t means, but clarity.

The Rationalist’s Gambit

Let’s start with a thought experiment that cuts through the noise. Imagine you’re about to be born, but you don’t know where or to whom. You don’t know your future gender, race, socioeconomic status, or natural abilities. From behind this “veil of ignorance”, as philosopher John Rawls termed it, what kind of world would you want to be born into?

This isn’t just a philosophical exercise — it’s game theory in its purest form. And it leads us inexorably toward a utilitarian framework. Not the naive utilitarianism that collapses under edge cases, but a sophisticated understanding that recognizes the complex interplay between individual liberty and collective welfare.

The math here is beautiful in its simplicity. Human welfare, as measured by subjective well-being, tracks roughly logarithmically with consumption. Double someone’s consumption, and you add one unit of utility. This single insight has profound implications for policy design, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

The Market Paradox

Both the left and right have fundamentally misdiagnosed the relationship between markets and human welfare. Markets are the most powerful wealth-creation engines humanity has ever devised. Full stop. The evidence is overwhelming, from the dramatic reduction in global poverty to the explosion of innovation in market economies. But — and this is crucial — markets also tend toward inequality, which, given our logarithmic utility function, reduces total human welfare.

This tension creates what I call the Market Paradox: we need markets to maximize total wealth, but we also need redistribution to optimize utility across the population. The conventional wisdom is that these goals are in conflict — that we must choose between efficiency and equity.

This is wrong. Spectacularly wrong.

The Holy Trinity

The solution lies in what I once aptly termed “market equitism”, although I’d argue we need to expand its scope considerably. The key insight is that not all redistributive policies are created equal. Some forms of taxation create massive deadweight loss, distorting economic behavior and destroying value. Others are neutral or even positive in their effects.

This leads us to the Holy Trinity of efficient policy instruments:

1. Pigovian Taxes: These are beautiful in their elegance. By taxing negative externalities — carbon emissions, congestion, pollution — we actually increase economic efficiency while generating revenue. It’s like finding free money between the couch cushions of the economy.
2. Land Value Tax: The closest thing to a perfect tax ever devised. It captures economic rent without distorting productive behavior. Henry George was right, and it’s time we admitted it.
3. Universal Basic Income: A pure transfer that preserves market incentives while providing a safety net. No welfare cliffs, no poverty traps, no bureaucratic overhead.

But here’s where Tyler Cowen might interject with a characteristically incisive observation: even perfect policies are worthless if we can’t implement them. And our current political system is spectacularly bad at implementing good policy.

The Democracy Technology Problem

Our voting methods are trapped in the 18th century. Plurality voting — where each person picks a single candidate — is like trying to run a modern economy with barter. It’s primitive technology that creates artificial polarization and empowers extremists.

The evidence from game theory and empirical testing is clear: better voting methods exist. Approval voting, score voting, and STAR voting all dramatically outperform plurality voting at selecting candidates who represent the actual preferences of voters. This isn’t speculative — we’ve seen it work in places like Fargo and St. Louis.

But even these superior voting methods aren’t enough for the challenges we face.

The Complexity Crisis

We’re facing an unprecedented convergence of challenges that our current democratic institutions simply aren’t equipped to handle:

• Artificial intelligence development that could fundamentally reshape society
• Climate change requiring complex long-term policy trade-offs
• Pandemics that demand rapid, scientifically-informed responses
• Evolving energy technologies with complex security implications
• Biotechnology advances that raise profound ethical questions
• Economic transitions that require nuanced policy responses

Meanwhile, our information ecosystem has fundamentally transformed. Social media and the internet have:

• Fractured our shared reality
• Created echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs
• Enabled rapid spread of misinformation
• Provided hostile nations tools to manipulate public opinion
• Shortened attention spans while problems require longer-term thinking

Traditional voting methods — even improved ones like approval voting — can’t fully address these challenges because they don’t solve the fundamental problem: voters need time and space for deep, informed deliberation.

The Deliberative Imperative

This is where “election by jury” becomes not just appealing but essential. By randomly selecting citizens and requiring them to participate in extensive deliberative processes, we create the conditions for genuinely informed decision-making.

Think about what happens in this setting:

• Voters hear detailed presentations from candidates
• Experts provide testimony and face cross-examination
• Participants engage in structured debate and discussion
• Complex topics get the time they deserve
• Echo chambers break down through forced exposure to diverse views
• Social media bubbles pop when faced with direct evidence
• Foreign influence campaigns lose their power when claims face scrutiny

But why random selection? Why not just let “experts” decide?

There are two crucial reasons:

1. Representative Values: Experts may have knowledge, but they don’t necessarily represent the diverse values and priorities of the broader population. A random sample, properly sized, captures the full spectrum of societal preferences. Policy choices aren’t just about facts — they’re about values, trade-offs, and priorities.
2. Incorruptible Selection: Any system of selecting “experts” creates a vulnerability to capture and corruption. Who selects the selectors? Who defines expertise? Random selection is the only truly neutral method that can’t be gamed or corrupted over time.

The magic of this system is that it combines:

• True representative democracy through random selection
• Enhanced decision-making through forced deliberation
• Protection against corruption through randomization
• Breaking of echo chambers through structured exposure to evidence

The result? A random sample of citizens transformed through deliberation into what we might call “temporary experts” — people who maintain their authentic values while gaining deep understanding of the issues at hand.

America’s Unique Position

Here’s where historical contingency meets opportunity. The United States, for all its flaws, possesses two crucial advantages that make it the natural laboratory for these reforms:

1. Unparalleled direct democracy infrastructure through the ballot initiative process
2. Consistent economic dynamism that provides stability for reform

This isn’t American exceptionalism — it’s American circumstantialism. These advantages are accidents of history, but they’re advantages nonetheless. And they give us a unique opportunity to demonstrate how these reforms can work in practice.

The Security Imperative

Now we come to the part that makes many progressives uncomfortable: power projection. But here’s the reality that no amount of wishful thinking can erase: the liberal order requires defensive capabilities. Authoritarian regimes in China, Russia, and elsewhere aren’t going to be persuaded by moral arguments alone.

This isn’t an argument for imperialism or needless intervention. It’s an argument for maintaining the credible force necessary to defend liberal values. The protection of human rights, gender equality, and minority rights requires more than good intentions — it requires the capacity to deter those who would destroy these values.

Remember: the peace and prosperity we take for granted isn’t the historical norm — it’s the product of specific institutions and capabilities that must be actively maintained.

The Strategic Cascade

So how do we put this all together? The key is understanding the causal cascade:

1. Better voting methods →
2. Better leaders and policies →
3. More efficient economic systems →
4. Greater wealth and stability →
5. Stronger defense of liberal values →
6. Expanded sphere of freedom and prosperity

This isn’t just theory. We’re already seeing pieces of this cascade in action where reforms have been implemented. The results are promising, but we need to think bigger.

The Reform Pathway

The ballot initiative process is our leverage point. It’s how we can break through the resistance of entrenched interests and demonstrate these ideas in practice. The strategy is clear:

1. Start with voting reform in receptive jurisdictions
2. Use improved voting methods to elect better leaders
3. Implement efficient economic policies
4. Build demonstration effects that can be replicated
5. Scale successful reforms through viral adoption

The Moral Imperative

Let’s be clear about what’s at stake. We’re not just talking about marginal improvements in policy efficiency. We’re talking about:

• Dramatically reduced poverty through more efficient redistribution
• Better environmental outcomes through proper pricing of externalities
• More representative democracy through better voting methods
• Stronger defense of human rights through credible deterrence
• Expanded sphere of human freedom and flourishing

The beauty of Expansionist Free Equitism is that it resolves the false tensions between:

• Markets and equity
• Democracy and efficiency
• Power and peace
• Liberty and security

The Path Forward

The tools exist. The mechanisms are known. The opportunity is present. What we lack is coordination and will.

This manifesto is a call to action. The reforms outlined here aren’t just good ideas — they’re moral imperatives. The suffering caused by our current institutional inadequacies is vast and unnecessary. We can do better. We must do better.

The path forward is clear:

1. Embrace the full toolkit of institutional reform
2. Start with voting methods to unlock better governance
3. Implement efficient economic policies
4. Maintain the security capabilities needed to defend these gains
5. Expand the sphere of freedom and prosperity

Conclusion: The Choice Before Us

We stand at a crucial juncture. The tools for meaningful reform exist, but the window of opportunity won’t stay open forever. Authoritarian models are gaining ground, and our democratic institutions are showing their age.

Expansionist Free Equitism offers a coherent framework for progress — one that’s both ambitious enough to matter and practical enough to work. It’s time to move beyond the tired debates of left versus right and toward a systematic approach to human flourishing.

The choice is ours. We can continue with business as usual and watch our institutions decay, or we can embrace a new paradigm that combines the best insights from economics, political science, and moral philosophy.

The stakes are existential. The path is clear. The time for action is now.