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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9667)	4/18/2010 7:17:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15994

If a couple had two children, both would be able to have a citizenship. If a couple had three children, one would miss out and would have to make their way in the world without the benefit of a citizenship. Why? What benefit does that produce? The money from selling citizenship? I probably should say the higher prices, because we could sell it now if we wanted to? And such higher prices (by restricting supply) might be likely, but are hardly certain. Even assuming the prices are higher I don't think that's enough of a benefit to justify the action. There is no practical limit on how much wealth a country can have. The limit is how well run it is. And how would denying citizenship to people born of two citizens in the US make the country better run. Personally I think it would itself be an example of "worse run", but ignoring or discounting that point, what would be better, and how would it be better?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (9667)	4/27/2010 11:10:14 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15994

That is a place to start: Citizenships could be inherited by a nominated child or disposed of with other property in a person's deceased estate, such as shares in a company or the family farm. If a couple had two children, both would be able to have a citizenship. If a couple had three children, one would miss out and would have to make their way in the world without the benefit of a citizenship. They wouldn't be voting so would not be able to vote to take opm as now happens in the unfortunate democratic process which has evolved over a century or two. I continue to believe that in the new model for an efficient state that citizenships are not inheritable. It is possible that the termination of a citizenship (on non negative terms) would create an income event. Thus the death of a parent would create an estate which might have enough income to pay for the citizenship of one or more children. I think that if all citizenships had to be purchased there could be a discount for children of citizens. The non automatic citizenship would disincent excessive excessive progenation br the unproductive. It would also create an automatic eviction mechanism for the offspring of any welfare recipients. It might be that people who were down on their luck might be forced to sell their citizenships to feed their families. But there is room for some continuation of the idea of full citizen with voting rights and others, such as visitors, non-voting citizens without ownership, criminals, and what have you. That is an important sideline to broach in advance. One would assume that criminality would cause a non positive termination of citizenship with no economic benefit to the perpetrator. Certainly, just like foreign workers in the US, such a citizenship society would want to encourage guest workers and perhaps grant free citizenships for certain accomplishments. Perhaps a person who has a inherited nomination and or partially paid citizenship would be included in the non-voting citizenship category. Perhaps certain types of unpaid citizenship grants would be non-participating. Granted citizenships might have reduced inheritance rights. They also would most likely have little or no redemption value.