I am not against or favor free immigration. Democracy have plus and minus.
I am just thinking.
Say you have a home. You live with your family. Father, mother, son, daughter. One day, your family vote that we need to have free immigrants.
So, 10 homeless people come to your house. Well, we're a democratic family. So the 10 homeless people then vote turning you all into slaves.
Okay, that's kind of silly right.
But that is the case where democracy is combined with totally free immigration.
How should this work out then?
Well, a home, have owners. You own the home. Let's say father, mother, son, daughter have 25% stake of the home.
Outsider wants a piece of your home. Well, he got to buy a share first.
Say an outsider come to your daughter and say, okay, I bought your share of home. Now, that outsider have 25% of voting power. And that's cool. He bought the share.
Another thing outsiders can do is to inject capital on the home. Say you want to buy another home next to it. Okay, the 10 outsiders invest money on your home. Now they are majority, but they also contribute more.
Perhaps, a more well defined property right for countries can solve this issues?
Another issue is, in democracy, the population do not only control the land, but also the people on the land. In democracy, if the majority will it, the majority can prohibit, drugs, polygamy, prostitution, charge any amount of tax. In a sense, it's as if the population itself is the "slave" of the "rulers".
Perhaps more clearly defined ownership on countries could work.
Of course, newborn babies are like outsiders too. Most democratic countries give free citizenship to those who are born in the same place. That means the house of welfare parasites that give birth to too many kids have more voting share.
Again, more clearly defined property right of who really owns the "country" can help solve the issues.
Just look at corporations. They're doing fine right? Why can't countries be more like corporations? Want to own share of the company? You just buy it from someone who wants to sell.
I am just thinking.
Say you have a home. You live with your family. Father, mother, son, daughter. One day, your family vote that we need to have free immigrants.
So, 10 homeless people come to your house. Well, we're a democratic family. So the 10 homeless people then vote turning you all into slaves.
Okay, that's kind of silly right.
But that is the case where democracy is combined with totally free immigration.
How should this work out then?
Well, a home, have owners. You own the home. Let's say father, mother, son, daughter have 25% stake of the home.
Outsider wants a piece of your home. Well, he got to buy a share first.
Say an outsider come to your daughter and say, okay, I bought your share of home. Now, that outsider have 25% of voting power. And that's cool. He bought the share.
Another thing outsiders can do is to inject capital on the home. Say you want to buy another home next to it. Okay, the 10 outsiders invest money on your home. Now they are majority, but they also contribute more.
Perhaps, a more well defined property right for countries can solve this issues?
Another issue is, in democracy, the population do not only control the land, but also the people on the land. In democracy, if the majority will it, the majority can prohibit, drugs, polygamy, prostitution, charge any amount of tax. In a sense, it's as if the population itself is the "slave" of the "rulers".
Perhaps more clearly defined ownership on countries could work.
Of course, newborn babies are like outsiders too. Most democratic countries give free citizenship to those who are born in the same place. That means the house of welfare parasites that give birth to too many kids have more voting share.
Again, more clearly defined property right of who really owns the "country" can help solve the issues.
Just look at corporations. They're doing fine right? Why can't countries be more like corporations? Want to own share of the company? You just buy it from someone who wants to sell.
