TJ, now you are talking and now you are thinking! It's automatic to come up with objections to new ideas. But having been selling for decades, I've seen a LOT of objections.
They come in two categories:
Dinkum objections such as concerns about the failure rate being too high for the cost of failure, or the colour being incompatible with the rest of the colour scheme, or any number of other problems.
Fake objections where the objection is raised simply as proof that the objector has a winning hand, hidden motive, secret agenda, tendentious objectives.
They show up as being in one or other category, just as day and night show up as distinctly different from each other. Normally, in nearly all instances, new ideas are met with the second category of objections. People come up with reasons why the idea is no good. The real objection is that they like the status quo and any new thing is a threat to what seems to them to be normal.
Amazingly, you seem to intuitively understand that such a thing might be a better way of life, but sensibly can see that there will be swarms of problems. A moment's consideration will remind you that those same problems arise in the normal serfdom model of citizenship, but without any of the advantages of the property-right type citizenship.
Indeed, just who the heck is in and who out? Just where ARE the borders of the property to be divvied up? What about the children who are born there of people who just swooped by but stopped in the transit lounge long enough to drop the baby? How much did people contribute to the collective property value? Do criminal prisoners serving decades of sentence get to own a chunk?
Just today there was an article in The New Zealand Herald about old age pensions for the million New Zealanders who live outside New Zealand at present and do not contribute any tax revenue. There are only 4 million inside New Zealand, half of whom contribute no value [being government spivs, beneficiaries, old, young or otherwise non-contributing] and half the remainder producing little value [being refugees who conned their way in from nasty places and who all too often carry their nasty cultural habits with them - such as AIDS, kidnapping, or murder]. It's obvious that some problems are looming as the chickens come home to roost.
I'm not inclined to pay a pension for people who lived the high life overseas for decades coming home to live on my account. People should provide for themselves. With part of their assets being a tradable citizenship worth something like $1 million, that would fund a significant retirement period. An annuity of $20,000 a year would last for a couple of decades even with some medical bills thrown in and maybe some late-life assisted living.
Yes, there are some details to be sorted out, but that's normal and it would be a lot easier than the current migration mess and serfdom style statism.
Heck, we can't even agree on spelling tradable/tradeable. It reminds me of 1996 when a bloke in BP Oil in London was discussing drivability/driveability spelling for a publication. I forget the answer, but ditching the e is okay by me.
When they invented English, they should have metricated it - it's a bigger mess than the imperial system of weights and measures with its ounces, pounds, furlongs, unfathomable bushels, pecks, drams yards, tons, poundals, BTU, gallons and baker's dozens.
Mqurice |
