GG few people are able to imagine a better way of doing things even when it is explained to them in 3D detail and even if it actually exists, most of them can't understand it.
You seem to think retired people are bludgers. You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word. A bludger is a person who wants something for nothing.
If a retired person, me, goes shopping, using my hard-earned, or easily-earned, money, then that doesn't make me a bludger.
If a person has not created value and uses government paid pension money to do the same shopping then they are a bludger.
Of course tradable citizenship wouldn't apply to only the moneyed elite. See how you automatically went into envy overdrive? Citizens of countries would automatically get their tradeable citizenship on the basis that they are citizens and should own in their own name their chunk of their own country which they and the generations before have created.
People wouldn't buy a tradable citizenship if they are already citizens. That's dopey! You can't sell somebody something they already own.
What can be sold is NEW citizenships to immigrants, or extra ones could be sold to existing citizens who might like to own half a dozen which they could lend to people who they want to enter the country to work for them at low pay. Or they might just want to invest in citizenships if the country is getting better and they can get a capital gain from owning citizenships.
The NZ government could sell 10,000 citizenships a year for a profit of $10 billion a year. That's a good portion of NZ government revenue. That wouldn't dilute the existing citizenships excessively. If citizens die without handing their estate on, then the citizenship would revert to the state, so new ones could always be sold.
NZ would be so good that millions of citizenships could be sold. People would vote to make their citizenships worth MORE not less, which people in democracies do at present.
At present, people have no idea what their voting does to their country's value nor what their politicians' actions do. They get some idea as the currency moves, but currencies are swindles all on their own and not necessarily strongly attached to what actions are taken in other respects. With a tradable citizenship market, the price would fall immediately dopey ideas were promulgated which looked likely to be enacted.
Politicians wanting to 'redistribute the wealth to bludgers and my favourite supporters' would find themselves getting few votes.
You think it's a dopey idea because you don't understand it, as shown by your comments. It's pointless criticizing something you don't understand. Where did you get the idea that Tradable Citizenships would be for the moneyed elite?
Communism, socialism, serfdom, tribalism, collectivism are so last century. Individual property is the way to go. To the extent that countries protect private property they do well. There are nearly 200 countries. You can line them up and see the result of private property protection and individual freedom. But all of them still hold citizens as state chattel serfs for government revenue. The government owns the state and its assets, the citizens do not.
If a citizen doesn't like it, all they can do is sell their few private trinkets and flee, leaving their share of the state behind. If they are lucky, they can get into a better place, such as UK, NZ, Oz or USA, which is what hordes of them want to do.
Mqurice |
