There really are no other options available: to promote tax competition you either have to be a naive fool or you have to be a proponent of a false ideology that does not support free markets but which does, instead, seek to undermine the state and its right to govern on behalf of the people who elected it with the aim if promoting an increase in economic inequality.
There is possibly an alternative view. Which is that politicians tend to overtax their captive populations. Competition being the method by which this temptation can be tempered.
But then that, candidly, is just neoliberal sophistry.
And no, just no:
Free-market capitalism might see free markets doing that, but let’s be clear about what the necessary assumptions are for free-market capitalism achieving this goal. They are that:
There are many firms in any market.
Freedom of entry and exit.
All firms produce an identical or homogeneous product.
All firms are price takers, therefore the firm’s demand curve is perfectly elastic.
There is perfect information and knowledge.
That’s the technical description of one model. Used so that we can explore the implications of a model that conforms to those strictures. Just about all of microeconomics is seeing what happens when we relax one of more of those strictures.
And it’s really remarkable how closely real world activity meets the predictions of that extreme model even when near all of those strictures are missed by a country mile. For example, even a monopolistic firm might well act as if it wasn’t one if it was fully aware that it had a contestable monopoly (as is true of many of them).
He’s taking the extreme of the model, saying it ain’t all true thus it don’t work. Which is like saying that a photo of the Eiffel Tower ain’t hundreds of metres tall so it’s not a representation.
Still pretty useful if you want to know what an Eiffel Tower looks like.