Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (272511)	1/3/2010 8:04:52 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 281500

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean some improvement of the situation is not a good idea: <there's more to citizenship than assets and financial interests. > Unwilling collectivism is one of the great evils of humanity. If people have possession of their share of the collective assets and financial interests and still choose to remain part of the collective, that's a lot better than refusing them the choice and shooting them in the back as the USSR did and China does if they try to escape. It's also a lot better than telling them they are free to leave but bad luck, they can't take their share of the hippie commune with them, despite centuries and generations of ancestor's efforts to create those assets. The main objection I have found so far to the idea of tradable citizenship is that it hasn't been done before [like the spinning jenny, industrial revolution, flying 10km high at 1000 kph, or going on a rocket to the Moon hadn't been done before] so it is ipso facto bad. Mostly people just can't understand the idea. People wouldn't want to put their money into a hippie commune and be patriotic about that and be happy to be just one of the happy collective. But they are expected to think it a good idea to be nothing more than part of a very large-scale hippie commune on a national basis. Mqurice