Imagine a restaurant. The customers debate and vote on what ingredients the food should include and how the food should be cooked. How much beef? How much chicken? How much corn? How much lettuce? How much basil? How much paprika? Boiled, fried, or baked? At what temperature? For how long? Then the ingredients chosen by the customers are mixed together and cooked in the manner chosen by the customers. The result is served to all the customers.
Would you eat at such a restaurant? I would not. I predict that food at such a restaurant would be awful.
But that is how government policies are chosen in most nations. If that is such a good way to chose government policies, why don't we chose restaurant food that way? If that is a bad way to chose restaurant food, why do we chose government policies that way? If this method results in awful restaurant food, why are we suprised that this method results in awful government policies?
In real restaurants, we have a choice of meals. Instead of choosing the ingredients and cooking methods, we choose what the cooked meal should be like. We let the restaurant staff decide how to achieve that cooked meal. And the restaurant customers do not have to order the same meal. Each customer is free to order a different meal. Competitive federalism is a system of government based on these principles.
In competitive federalism, there are many competing governments. You chose one of the competing governments based on overall quality of life, and let the government staff worry about details like whether the economy is based on capitalism or communism. You chose a competing government based on actual results which the competing government has achieved in the past, instead of choosing a politician based on promises the politician will not keep. And every person can choose a different competing government. You are not required to accept the government which you do not want, but which was chosen by other people.