If everything is already owned by somebody or some group of somebodies
Bob's citizenship is owned by Mary, Bob's third kid's citezenship isn't owned by Bob, Mary, or everyone else who is already a citizenship.
Citizenship is the right to live in a place, the right to vote etc. My exercise of those rights isn't your property, nor is that of any of my younger siblings (I was the 2nd born in my family), to the extent its any property right at all (and looking at citizenship as a property right in the first place is a rather unusual way to look at it), its theirs.
Say the country comprised a 4 bedroom house, and there are 8 people living there, 2 to a room, then adding another 8 people, or even just another 1, is going to create significant dilution of the existing property right.
Say the country is a 1000 room house, and there are eight people living there, 50 rooms for each, and 600 spares, and then another person moves in...
I can create silly analogies too. Its one thing to make an analogy to support your argument, but present the actual argument first please.
all for one and one for all, let's all share everything in common ownership
Letting new Americans live in, vote in, etc. the US, bares no relation whatsoever to "let's share everything in common ownership"
Simply arithmetic. $800 divided by 2 = $400 each. Divided by 4 = $200 each.
That assumes that new individuals are not net value creators. Your statements after that one assumes they are net value destroyers. But the typical and the average new American is a net value creator, not value neutral, or a destroyer of value.
By more accurately assigning property rights, societies are vastly improved.
Your not assigning property rights at all. Your taking away rights to vote, rights to run for office, residence rights, etc.
Also there is nothing more accurate about this. There is no reason why I, or my older sister, should have more political, residence and other rights associated with citizenship, than my younger siblings (or that other future families in such situation should be treated that way, since presumably my younger siblings would be grandfathered in).
We already have that. I am part of that privileged class which is an earned privilege. I studied, worked, saved, invested and now enjoy the rewards.
As would newly born Americans, or newly born New Zealanders. Third born children aren't inherently less productive than you. Perhaps your exceptional in that regard, but so are some future third or later children, and some first or 2nd born people (or existing people in general since apparently in your plan all existing citizens would keep their citizenship) are exceptional burdens on society.
Most current citizens have not done anything in terms of earning their citizenship that future people that you would exclude from citizenship will not do.
In Tradable Citizenship societies, privilege is earned and looting is punished.
No, being born before the change is made, or being born 1st or 2nd in a family, hands you the privilege, and that group could use it to loot the people for whom the privilege is denied.
You obviously prefer the communist, collectivist ways with property vested in the state, not the individual.
Nonsense. I prefer freedom and equality under the law.
Your policy presence would seem to indicate that you prefer setting up special privileges that some could use to loot others. I don't actually think you want such a situation, but the policy you are pushing would seem to create it.
Again there is no connection between not supporting denying voting and residence rights to future naturally born Americans, who are children of citizens, and supporting communism or collectivism. |
