The formalization of political powers, thirdly, allows for the possibility of effective government. Once the universe of democratic corruption is converted into a (freely transferable) shareholding in gov-corp . the owners of the state can initiate rational corporate governance, beginning with the appointment of a CEO. As with any business, the interests of the state are now precisely formalized as the maximization of long-term shareholder value. There is no longer any need for residents (clients) to take any interest in politics whatsoever. In fact, to do so would be to exhibit semi-criminal proclivities. If gov-corp doesn’t deliver acceptable value for its taxes (sovereign rent), they can notify its customer service function, and if necessary take their custom elsewhere. Gov-corp would concentrate upon running an efficient, attractive, vital, clean, and secure country, of a kind that is able to draw customers. No voice, free exit.
One reason why the distinction between these terms matters is that few people are at all interested in conflict resolution when the conflict is over extremely high-stakes and seemingly non-negotiable issues. That is why the . Republicans usually refused to even consider compromise -- seen to be a "conflict resolution" act-- during the Obama presidency, and few Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) are considering compromise over the big issues developing in the early days of the Trump administration. So conflict resolution seems to be a non-starter as it is in many other intractable conflicts around the world where the disputants are not interested in negotiated solutions.