Skinow, it would take zero time to "save for a citizenship". Citizens would simply be issued them just as they are issued a passport but with actual security of identification instead of the fraudulent methods used now. Israelis for example got NZ passports by using dead children's birth details and purporting to be them.
When people make arguments against something but the argument bears no relationship to the thing discussed, it means they are not understanding it. "Oh I heard of that Tradable Citizenship thing, but the sky is blue you loser so of course it wouldn't work". "Also, oranges cost $1 a kilogram so again, I have shown it's no good".
Mostly people like to show how any new idea is no good and rather than understand it, they just spray some words at it and call it a job well done. If others say similar things, they figure they have a really good case, because most people think in slogans and by meme than by actual reason. CDMA for example, was supposedly no good and even "Breached the laws of physics" but you now use it and I thank you for your custom.
Yes, you are right that in a privately owned country, each citizen would still have only one vote, but the incentives would be better than now. If somebody found themselves in a loser state which was heading for the gurgler, in their opinion, they could sell to an enthusiast for such stupid ideas and escape unscathed whereas now, whole countries vote themselves into catastrophe and people who disagree have to go down with the ship or simply flee leaving their ancestral commons property behind for the depredations of others to have at it.
Yes, you are right, they could outvote you and that's all there is to it. But in general, people don't vote for their own destruction. Some do and at times most do, until they realize the error of their thinking. At present, it makes sense for a lot of people to vote to get while the getting is good and to Hell with the future because they personally won't have much stake in it. The same problem would exist that groups would vote to benefit themselves, but they and others would see the result in their national "share price" immediately. They would have more incentive to avoid such foolishness. Even so, plenty would still vote for self-destruction [albeit inadvertently] because that's the nature of cognitive evolution. We didn't get to our present state of cognitive development from chimpoid state in one simple logical move forward. It was the Darwinian selection of those less bad which led to us.
Similarly, "those less bad" continues to determine better countries. Hence people still flee in droves to USA and UK from barbarian states to the south. That does not mean USA or UK are perfect. They are just less bad than alternatives.
Yes, you are right, some people in wealthy states would cash in and move to cheap places to live like a king. They had better be careful. Selling a USA citizenship and moving to Rhodesia 30 years ago would not have been a good idea.
You can evaluate the likely price of citizenships now from the current economic value of various countries. GDP per capita being the main guideline. It would not be so simple of course, but that would be a good start. Each person would have their own reasons and values. Somewhere like Cook Islands or Greece would be low now, but could be world champions in a few years as lots of people move in with big bucks and an eye for the future possibilities.
Your suggestion of how to run things is how they work now. Countries "compete" for tax slaves. It should not be surprising that productive people avoid high tax places in favour of lower tax places though of course there is more to selecting places than that. Accessibility is one - Mexicans can't just swarm the Hong Kong border and there are not such excellent welfare offerings in place as in the UK and USA either.
A combination of what you suggest [compete for tax slaves] and a tradable share in the country would be better. Then, people who would be spending money rather than earning it would also be attracted. Initially, attracting people who can spend money would be more important than attracting earners because without spenders, there would less earnings for earners to earn tax free. Greece for example doesn't have an economic foundation to attract earners. It would simply attract tax exiles who could earn elsewhere and who would hopefully transfer some of it to Greece. They would buy accommodation, meals and so on, but not to build car factories or local economic activities. Attracting people ready-to-spend NOW would be better, though of course high earners would spend immediately too. Attract BOTH.
Your method is how NZ works now. The clowns in charge try to attract high earners, but the high earners are robbed by the local kleptocracy, empowered by the ignorant electorate, so the high earners just use NZ as a stepping stone to Australia, where they really want to be. We know various people personally who did that and there are hordes of others. Producers in NZ increasingly are fleeing to Oz too, leaving a nation of bludgers behind who of course go on voting for more free stuff.
Yes, you are right that moving states to nab the freebies in each is not showing Stockholmian love of captors. Did somebody suggest it did? I have done the same - lived in Canada, UK, Belgium to nab the economic benefits, then cleared out back to NZ to "live like a king". Similarly, I invest in Japan, USA and via USA to around the world, and ship the profits to where I am to "live like a king". A country which offered Tradable Citizenship would be likely to see those profits shipped their way. I like Greece. But I'm not going to go near it while they are rampaging in the streets looking for somebody to rob like normal. If they introduced actual democracy [in the property-owning sense of Tradable Citizenship], I'd be very likely to buy one, or ten if they were cheap enough.
Similarly Cook Islands could be a great citizenship to own if they installed optical fibre to various countries [at least one to start] which would provide a great economic foundation. Geeks who live in the cold north could spend northern winters in paradise. Same for Greece. It could be a large node in Cyberspace, being at the nexus of billions of people with a fantastic climate for 2020 as reglaciation buries the Swedes, northern UK, Germans and Danes.
<For some reason you expect that the price of citizenships will be high - in the millions. I doubt that this is possible. > Think in terms of assets, return on investment, and income potential. You will be surprised at how big the numbers get [not for countries like Zimbabwe and India of course - for Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg with excellent infrastructure and other assets - including climate, scenery, and intangibles such as Virtuous Victorian Values]. Right now, many countries value citizens in the $millions for such things as road safety improvement investment and medical treatment. That's because that's what they are in fact worth in those countries. That's a guide to citizenship value [not an accurate one of course, but a guide].
Mqurice |
