Back on good ol’ boring Earth: What is the optimal size of government to maximize economic performance, Noah Smith asks, “If bigger is better, what about a global government?” Smaller local governments were the solution, economist Charles Tiebout opined in 1956; “local governments knew more about their people’s needs than distant central governments, and so the best system was one where local governing units — city-states, essentially — offered different packages of taxes and public services.” Smith says there are several reasons why Tiebout’s proposition can fail, one way is because “many of the services governments provide are what economists call public goods. These are things that the private sector either can’t or won’t provide. The classic examples are national defense, police, courts and support for basic research. But many other things, like roads, electrical grids and ports, are usually in short supply when left to the private sector… That throws a big wrench into the Tiebout model, because there are many different kinds of these goods, and the amount people want of each one tends to differ a lot.” A second issue relates to incentives that won’t always be “right.” “ Some governments may decide to maximize the size of their tax bases. Others might care only about the welfare of their citizens, while others might be beholden to special interests.” Smith adds that there are plenty of other problems, including the difficulty coordinating between a large number of city states and the increased probability of conflict.