On the right of capitals to self-determination

   It is relevant to begin with the few generalities on the relations between money and States before to consider nowadays further.
   Appearing from expansive commodity exchange, money was choosing its owners not only among the chieftains of tribes. Having achieved certain critical mass, it already did not want to tolerate the restrictions installed by the tribal relationships. That desire distinctly manifested the law expressing the essence of money - passion for the maximum velocity of its rising. Tribal lifestyle was overthrown. Instead of it, the money created new ones - States - servants of its will. The second law of money is a form of expressions of the first one. The more mass of money, the less the velocity of its rising. Therefore competition, decentralization of money realizes its passion for the growing.
   All States are obliged to follow these two laws.

Competition of States - external

   The power of States is defined by the wealth amount they have. However, it is rather difficult to value these amounts. Money too little cares about the amounts though. Since to enlarge itself is its main goal, it is attracted by the States where it could rise with the most velocity.
   The rates of exchange correlated with the exchange rates of the past as with scales for the present allow defining the results reached by the States for the past period. Money follows them for choosing of the States where they want to rise. For money, different States are just different more or less successful methods of own rising. For States, the satisfaction of the desire of money for the growing is a life-or-death question. The States abandoned by money in the same moment go back to primitive-wild, tribal forms of life.
   The integral, quantitative measure of the competitive ability of States is their above-mentioned relative rates of exchange. They very clear show, which States are moving in the past.

Moving in the past

   It seems the States with the constantly falling rates of exchange, must definitely not exist in the nature, they are nonviable, must disappear, give their place to more competitive ones. In reality, we see around, many States-ghosts, whose days are numbered. The days were numbered, but they still have dragged their miserable being for decades.
   Let us to track the genesis of the States. The money of rich people creates the institutes of State power. Using them the deftest rulers steal from the budgets, extort bribes, enrich themselves by all ways they know. Parasitizing, they finally have got a capital sufficient to oppose those who born them. There is nothing dramatic that on the scene new players, new moneys appear if they compete with the other money as equal. However, money familiar to the State installs a monopoly, power of not all money, but only itself, improving methods parasitizing on the capitals, being under its jurisdiction. The capitals turn out to be weak before the mutinous State machine. That money has dropped out from its own hands and already does not have - the power, repressive organs, turned against it itself. The State-monopolist goes back to relations based on forcing, committing to oblivion the second law of money - necessity of the competition and decentralization.
   The results reached by the newly spring reptiles presented themselves. The systematically falling rates of exchange, then the rates of exchange as imaginary values (as if they are, but at the same time as if they already are not), insulation from the external world, dying-out of the population.
   Until now there are not effective ways of treatment of the States-vampires. The long existence itself of such States proves that.

Is democracy - a medicine?

   The pseudo-State insulates itself from the external world, since it is not competitive.
   It does not allow both real competition and decentralization on its territory. More exactly, it allows them within lows set by it itself. However, if the created conditions do not give an economic growing, the State bans to choose other conditions, other jurisdiction to its money-slave. This would be possible, if two or more jurisdictions were simultaneously, parallel on the territory. The democratic model, however, envisages something different.
   Instead of the competition of jurisdictions - here and now, it prescribes to choose unknown persons, so-called servants of people, once in several years, who install their own laws for a period until following election. It is believed that the opinion of citizens who could not prevail in the election is wrong, but the opinion of majority is true. Then, if it yet turns out that the majority was erring, all citizens must long expect the next expression of will while the servants line own pockets.
   If the people can wait for years, the money does not wait. The people can amuse themselves throwing democratic dice once in several years or decades. But not this time is money.
   There is not the word "democracy" in the money laws. Capitals disobey the laws of majority, but each and all obey their laws.

Competitions of States - internal
Market of jurisdictions instead of democracy

   Rulers have created, even if on behalf of the majority of population, the State for the satisfaction of their own necessities. It is lawful, as well, the right of people living on the same territory, if they disagree to follow in nowhere, to create their own State and to comply with its jurisdiction. Until now, the same was realized by separation of territories. Nevertheless, there is another possibility.
   Money does not care about the figuration of States. They are interested in one - insofar they can be increased in them. Both the sizes of States and on what territories they exist remain capitals indifferent. If certain currency is acknowledged by other currencies, this currency already presents a certain State, even if it does not have a territory at all.
   A contradictive State believes it strengthens itself by enforcing a single jurisdiction - the result of voting. The truth, however, is not proved by the voting, but by market. Thus, if the State wants to find the truth, it should have a market and the market of jurisdictions also. Not only majority of population, but also each one must have a right of choice. Not the choice of the doubtful deputies but desired jurisdiction. Then the market of States would take the place of democracy; the real economical achievements would prove realness of each internal State, replacing by themselves the hopes of bright, communist future.

The possible technologies of division

   Separation of coherent territory. That supposes the mass resettlement of population.
   Granting a right of choice of jurisdiction without the movement to the new place of abode. Here two variants are possible.
   In the first - a land, if it is a property of a person or of a business entity, falls under jurisdiction of the State chosen by them (here also, two variants are possible: the State can be chosen or from the (con)federate set or worldwide). The States in these cases already will not be located on coherent territories, but will be scattered or within (con)federations, or worldwide.
   The second variant. In this "technology" the territory is the property of (con)federation, but the States are only abstractions, virtual States.

Who will be supported by the world capital?

Of course, if certain State is viable, i.e. it has a growing of relative rate of exchange above average, it is excessive to create new jurisdictions. But if it is obvious, that the State is a bankrupt, people, if the right to life is given them (even if they are not majority of population), can use their right to the self-determination and it is in the interests of world community to assist them. Just yet not late and such State yet not completely turn into a "black hole" transforming people, capitals and natural resources in the vacuum.

To the question about coexistence

When creating (con)federation scattered or virtual States it arises a problem of their coexistence and making the common laws, organs, which again can want "to take the power in their own hands".
It could be reasonable that the internal States with the most growing of rate of exchange would have the right of voice proportional the growing. Then high capitalist justice could be reached.

Summary

   The money law on necessity of competition and decentralization implies a constant solving of contradictions between few huge united capitals and numerous dispersed small ones.
   Monopoly of State on its territory insulating it from the external world leads the State to the complete degradation. To become competitive on the world market, States-monopolists, especially having the falling rates of exchange, should to allow an internal competition of different jurisdictions. Practicaly, those can be two - presenting monopolies and presenting small business.
   The principle: one territory - one State, have become manacle for development of money. The requirement of State: to obey its single jurisdiction only because of that someone is on its territory, is violence against people and capitals in essence the same that realized chieftains of tribes.
   The democratic model based on voting is inert and contradictive. It abolishes "natural selection" of laws, producing by the competition, offering "the only right jurisdiction " and accustoms the society to expect miracles from future elections.
   The market of jurisdiction on the territory of (con)federation of new type affords a liberty of choice not only to majority of the citizens, but to the all citizens. Instead of voting for (un)predictable deputies, the people realize their choice by changing their citizenship here and now.
   As a result people and capitals create for themselves perfect laws and obedient States - performers of their common will.