[buboard]

Most countries are ran far worse than a company. If citizens had the option to freely jump between countries, most of them would go bankrupt, that's why they rely on coercion. Very few countries are ran efficiently and they re typically very small like Singapore.

[fzeroracer]

I feel like the only people that can honestly say this are those that are not familiar with just how poorly ran a lot of companies tend to be.

The major difference being that an inept government is generally much more visible than an inept company. But as someone that's worked both commercial and government, I've seen enough to make a definitive statement that a lot of companies are incredibly poorly ran. You just don't see it.

[buboard]

the major difference is that countries cannot die, no matter how poorly ran

[vincent-toups]

Countries have a different purpose than companies. It hardly makes sense to compare them.

Companies can fire people. Countries cannot. Companies are typically not democratically controlled whereas countries should be. Companies are not obligated to meet the basic needs of their employees, protect their rights even if it isn't profitable, defend against foreign adversaries.

Companies have one, very narrow, purpose and efficiency is one property which is induced by that arrangement. States, on the other hand, are human institutions constituted to much broader purpose and scope. I'd actually argue its deeply inhuman to expect efficiency to be a primary property of a state.

[ahartmetz]

Usually only the country one would move to is restricting movement. So what the hell are you talking about?

[RealityVoid]

Obviously, lots of countries people would move _from_ would restrict movement as well. See countries from the former communist block.

[buboard]

Exactly