Well regulated immigration solution will make more people happy without hurting anyone. It's also the key to solve another annoying problem.
Not everyone in a country share the same values.
Some are libertarian, some are statists, some are capitalistic, some are socialists, some are secular, and some are religious.
All this time we argue argue argue which one is right. Quite often, our preferences are not more "right" than others. Our preferences simply profit us at the expense of others. So we state our position claiming that it's good for everyone even though it's good for us and bad for them.
Lying becomes so common in politics there is almost no honest politicians.
Meanwhile, there is another world. A world governed by even more greed. The world of corporations. Yet those corporations are quite often far more well governed than most countries. Most people are nice and honest in capitalism. There are exceptions. But most businessmen are honest because if they're not, no body do biz with them anymore and they make less money.
Why not used what's working for businesses and use it on states? Why not "extend" property rights to citizenship? A citizen own a piece of a country the way a stockholder owns a piece of corporation. The difference is each citizen can only own a piece.
This restriction may or may not be relaxed. I don't know. Some very poor countries can benefit from "investors" buying tons of citizenship.
Aren't we all tired of accommodating those whose preferences are different from us?
Well. Why not treat every country like "Disneyland" and the citizens like the stockholders. The population is the customer.
Under democracy, the population are the voters. That is like customers can vote in businesses. Doesn't make sense right? As a customer, my interests are much better protected by my capability to buy from a different company. If I want microsoft to create better excel for me, I don't vote at Microsoft to build that. I just try google sheet.
The microsoft' stock holders then realizing that "many people like me" wanting to try google sheet votes for CEO that make better excels.
My idea is the following. Let each states, countries, in the world govern as they wish.
Some people will like the way they govern. The religious want to go to Afganistan. The secular wants to go to France. Supply demand.
Then what? Then soon we see the obvious problem. Too many people wants to go to western civilizations. It's the best place to live for MOST people. I said most. An internet entrepreneur or a digital nomad can actually live anywhere and make roughly the same money. Super rich billionaires like Eduardo Saverin would love to scrap his American citizenship?
But why do people want to go to western civilizations? Welfare and implicit welfare.
No body starves in US. Even taxi drivers can earn a fortune relative to what they earn in India. But this is not efficient. Americans are paying expensive health care and expensive taxis because their government protect "jobs" for citizens.
Can we make this win win? Yes we can.
Let's start with status quo. Don't need major changes. Everything is the way it is. That job protection and welfare is a mess to dismantle. Let's keep it that way for a while.
Say a lot of people are willing to pay $5k per year to live in US. Normal right. Then offer a "standard" visa costing $5k a year. That immigrant can get a feel what it feels like becoming US residence for $5k a year. Okay you can make that $10k a year or whatever. They can work as engineers, doctors, lawyers. Pay the same amount of tax plus that $5k a year.
Where does the money go?
You just split it equally among American citizens. Say US have 10% immigrants (Dubai have 80% and you see how this kind of money can get really big, but let's start small). Every immigrants paying $5k a year. Every american got extra $500 a year. Not bad.
What about American citizen? As residence they too have to pay $5k a year, but they got $5.5k a year as citizen dividend. So each American citizen got a plus $500 pure dividend.
Now, say some Americans are not "happy" with US. Say they want Shariah laws. We knows that most terrorists are not immigrants but "native born". You know what those people end up doing. Terrorism.
They can live in Afganistan. Then what? He still got that full $5500 per year. He'll be pretty rich in Afganistan. Not bad right. Americans just pay them to leave there.
Another people that love American value, capitalism, rule of laws, etc. will replace him, pay $5k a year, get American salary.
Basically too many people want to go to rich countries and rejected. Too few people from rich countries wants to idiotically change their country. Sometimes a citizen in a well governed democratic secular states want to try a different failing ideologies, for example. Aren't you tired of having to accommodate the socialists and the religious radicals voters? They can vote. They can run your life. And their way to improve their life is to vote so your country becomes more like what they wish. Great. Wouldn't that be more efficient to just pay them to get out.
If I like google sheet more than microsoft excel, it's simply more efficient for me to use google sheet (I use both) then vote for microsoft to produce google sheet.
I don't go to Disney land and "vote" so Disneyland show striptease? If I want to watch striptease, I go to Pornland. The same way, immigrants shouldn't go to Europe and demand Sharia? What's the point? They want sharia, they go to sharia countries.
No countries should give citizenship away to refugees. It hurts the interests to their citizens. Refugees can come and work and pay extra visa fee. If they are diligent and they like Europe so much they can buy Europe citizenship from some Europeans that don't like it.
If I am a citizen of a secular country and I want to live under religious government, or via versa, it's simply more efficient for everyone if I move to a country that I like than vote so my country changes.
If I own microsoft stock I still get dividend even though I stop buying microsoft product. The same ways, an american citizen living in Afganistan should still get his citizenship dividend. Most "redistribution of wealth" should be changed into simple citizenship dividend that a person can enjoy no matter where they live.
Then market like mechanism or perhaps some government tweaking can be done. You think you have too many immigrants? Charge staying visa more money.
You think too many smart people are leaving? Well. Charge less.
As citizenship gets dividend, it becomes like stocks. It has values. Why not let citizens buy and sell their citizenship too in open market? Right of residency and citizenship can be bought and sold on open market? Perhaps because of many issues with citizenship and residency, it's not going to be a normal free for all market. Americans won't like terrorists no matter how much they pay. They may like engineers, scientists, or other smart people. But those smart people easily earn tons of money in US. They won't mind paying the extra $5k per year visa.
Now. What will happen is the states will be more like corporations.
We're basically extending property right, that we take for granted, when we deal with stocks in corporations, to states. If I own a share in microsoft stock, I own a piece of the company. If someone own an American citizenship, he owns a piece of America. Make sense right?
The difference is, in corporations, anyone wanting a share of corporation have to buy it from someone that owns it.
In US, welfare parasites can breed and breed and breed and all get free citizenship. Once citizenship have "values", you can quickly see that it's going to be very costly to you to let welfare parasites to breed and breed and breed. Perhaps, you can consider paying them to stop breeding? The actual amount of money you can pay will be more clear. That is the price of citizenship value.
Say an american citizenship worth $100k. If something pays $5k dividend per year, I suppose it worth around $100k. Every time a welfare parasite produce less children you save $100k. Just tell those parasites, if you don't have children by the time you're 30, well, you're not going to inherit your citizenship to any children right? Here, enjoy your money. Just give them money in ways that the present value of the money you give is the same with the value of citizenship.
This will not work in US alone.
Look at truly messed up country with very poor people. Those poor countries can cause problems you know. They cause terrorism etc.
Poor countries have low valuation. Citizenship of ethiopia is probably worth $1k. Perhaps, some American can buy tons of Ethiopia's citizenship and "vote" better? Help the poor in win win ways?
Americans are obviously wiser than Syrians or Iraqis. Buy tons of citizenships from the Syrians and vote your way to make those countries better too. Better than sending bombs I bet. Some countries fall to civil war? Over them a way out.
That country can rent some regions to you, you govern. Obviously you can govern well right? Give them back their regions after 50 years. Hell, you can buy it actually.
Some Yazidis or Christians got their land seized by Isis? Tell those christians, we'll bomb Isis, half of your land is ours.
The yazidis and christians in ISIS held teritory will think. My land value used to be $50k. With ISIS, the value will be $0. Ah I just lost $25k and ISIS is death.
Jews wants more land? Offer those displaced people a fair offer. Do something. Perhaps some regulation need to be in place so this don't get misused. A state shouldn't create civil war so they can buy land more cheaply. But shit happens and we can make a fair deal to those in deep shit.
Basically we just uses what's working in corporation and extend that to the states.
Another benefit is you are less likely to have to accommodate people that are different than you.
Imagine Alice and Bob have dual citizenship in Arab and Singapore. Alice is secular and Bob is religious. How would they vote?
Currently Alice will vote for secularism and Bob will vote for more religion. What we have is a mixed middle way state where minority have to put up to majority and the majority often make concession to minority.
If citizenship is like stocks, how would Alice and Bob vote? They will vote the exact same way. Yes. Alice will move to Arab and Bob would move to secular Singapore. How their countries are governed do not matter to them anymore.
All that matter to them is how much ROI they got from their citizenships (dividend plus growth of citizenship valuation).
Alice, being secular, is aware that Arab is a religious country. She lives in Singapore anyway. Arab religious laws do not affect her in anyway. She knows that many investors in Arab are used to religious rules. Those investors do not want strip dancing to suddenly becoming legal in Arab Saudi. So Alice, being a profit seeking citizen or stakeholders will vote for whatever makes her country attractive to immigrants. She will vote for religious Arab.
Alice lives in Singapore. She votes for secular parties in Singapore.
Bob?
The same.
Alice and Bob votes for whatever maximizes return of their citizenship. If they don't like living in one country, they simply move to another.
The only downside of this is that it's a bit undemocratic. Bob, that lives in Arab votes to govern how Alice lives. Alice that lives in Singapore votes for how Bob lives in Arab. However, their interests are still properly aligned. Bob and Alice want to maximize their return on citizenship/states' stock.
The interests of the population is still protected. If the population isn't happy, the population will just leave, lowering the market value of standard visa and lowering the value citizenship.
It's like corporation. I can't vote for Microsoft' CEO. Yet, as a customer of microsoft, Microsoft do care about me right? Hell. Customers are kings even more than voters under capitalism. Profitable customers at least. Just like customers interests are well served under capitalism, population interests are well served under this states as corporation kind of arrangements.
If you think it's too much deviation from democracy, then start small first. See if it works.
Not everyone in a country share the same values.
Some are libertarian, some are statists, some are capitalistic, some are socialists, some are secular, and some are religious.
All this time we argue argue argue which one is right. Quite often, our preferences are not more "right" than others. Our preferences simply profit us at the expense of others. So we state our position claiming that it's good for everyone even though it's good for us and bad for them.
Lying becomes so common in politics there is almost no honest politicians.
Meanwhile, there is another world. A world governed by even more greed. The world of corporations. Yet those corporations are quite often far more well governed than most countries. Most people are nice and honest in capitalism. There are exceptions. But most businessmen are honest because if they're not, no body do biz with them anymore and they make less money.
Why not used what's working for businesses and use it on states? Why not "extend" property rights to citizenship? A citizen own a piece of a country the way a stockholder owns a piece of corporation. The difference is each citizen can only own a piece.
This restriction may or may not be relaxed. I don't know. Some very poor countries can benefit from "investors" buying tons of citizenship.
Aren't we all tired of accommodating those whose preferences are different from us?
Well. Why not treat every country like "Disneyland" and the citizens like the stockholders. The population is the customer.
Under democracy, the population are the voters. That is like customers can vote in businesses. Doesn't make sense right? As a customer, my interests are much better protected by my capability to buy from a different company. If I want microsoft to create better excel for me, I don't vote at Microsoft to build that. I just try google sheet.
The microsoft' stock holders then realizing that "many people like me" wanting to try google sheet votes for CEO that make better excels.
My idea is the following. Let each states, countries, in the world govern as they wish.
Some people will like the way they govern. The religious want to go to Afganistan. The secular wants to go to France. Supply demand.
Then what? Then soon we see the obvious problem. Too many people wants to go to western civilizations. It's the best place to live for MOST people. I said most. An internet entrepreneur or a digital nomad can actually live anywhere and make roughly the same money. Super rich billionaires like Eduardo Saverin would love to scrap his American citizenship?
But why do people want to go to western civilizations? Welfare and implicit welfare.
No body starves in US. Even taxi drivers can earn a fortune relative to what they earn in India. But this is not efficient. Americans are paying expensive health care and expensive taxis because their government protect "jobs" for citizens.
Can we make this win win? Yes we can.
Let's start with status quo. Don't need major changes. Everything is the way it is. That job protection and welfare is a mess to dismantle. Let's keep it that way for a while.
Say a lot of people are willing to pay $5k per year to live in US. Normal right. Then offer a "standard" visa costing $5k a year. That immigrant can get a feel what it feels like becoming US residence for $5k a year. Okay you can make that $10k a year or whatever. They can work as engineers, doctors, lawyers. Pay the same amount of tax plus that $5k a year.
Where does the money go?
You just split it equally among American citizens. Say US have 10% immigrants (Dubai have 80% and you see how this kind of money can get really big, but let's start small). Every immigrants paying $5k a year. Every american got extra $500 a year. Not bad.
What about American citizen? As residence they too have to pay $5k a year, but they got $5.5k a year as citizen dividend. So each American citizen got a plus $500 pure dividend.
Now, say some Americans are not "happy" with US. Say they want Shariah laws. We knows that most terrorists are not immigrants but "native born". You know what those people end up doing. Terrorism.
They can live in Afganistan. Then what? He still got that full $5500 per year. He'll be pretty rich in Afganistan. Not bad right. Americans just pay them to leave there.
Another people that love American value, capitalism, rule of laws, etc. will replace him, pay $5k a year, get American salary.
Basically too many people want to go to rich countries and rejected. Too few people from rich countries wants to idiotically change their country. Sometimes a citizen in a well governed democratic secular states want to try a different failing ideologies, for example. Aren't you tired of having to accommodate the socialists and the religious radicals voters? They can vote. They can run your life. And their way to improve their life is to vote so your country becomes more like what they wish. Great. Wouldn't that be more efficient to just pay them to get out.
If I like google sheet more than microsoft excel, it's simply more efficient for me to use google sheet (I use both) then vote for microsoft to produce google sheet.
I don't go to Disney land and "vote" so Disneyland show striptease? If I want to watch striptease, I go to Pornland. The same way, immigrants shouldn't go to Europe and demand Sharia? What's the point? They want sharia, they go to sharia countries.
No countries should give citizenship away to refugees. It hurts the interests to their citizens. Refugees can come and work and pay extra visa fee. If they are diligent and they like Europe so much they can buy Europe citizenship from some Europeans that don't like it.
If I am a citizen of a secular country and I want to live under religious government, or via versa, it's simply more efficient for everyone if I move to a country that I like than vote so my country changes.
If I own microsoft stock I still get dividend even though I stop buying microsoft product. The same ways, an american citizen living in Afganistan should still get his citizenship dividend. Most "redistribution of wealth" should be changed into simple citizenship dividend that a person can enjoy no matter where they live.
Then market like mechanism or perhaps some government tweaking can be done. You think you have too many immigrants? Charge staying visa more money.
You think too many smart people are leaving? Well. Charge less.
As citizenship gets dividend, it becomes like stocks. It has values. Why not let citizens buy and sell their citizenship too in open market? Right of residency and citizenship can be bought and sold on open market? Perhaps because of many issues with citizenship and residency, it's not going to be a normal free for all market. Americans won't like terrorists no matter how much they pay. They may like engineers, scientists, or other smart people. But those smart people easily earn tons of money in US. They won't mind paying the extra $5k per year visa.
Now. What will happen is the states will be more like corporations.
We're basically extending property right, that we take for granted, when we deal with stocks in corporations, to states. If I own a share in microsoft stock, I own a piece of the company. If someone own an American citizenship, he owns a piece of America. Make sense right?
The difference is, in corporations, anyone wanting a share of corporation have to buy it from someone that owns it.
In US, welfare parasites can breed and breed and breed and all get free citizenship. Once citizenship have "values", you can quickly see that it's going to be very costly to you to let welfare parasites to breed and breed and breed. Perhaps, you can consider paying them to stop breeding? The actual amount of money you can pay will be more clear. That is the price of citizenship value.
Say an american citizenship worth $100k. If something pays $5k dividend per year, I suppose it worth around $100k. Every time a welfare parasite produce less children you save $100k. Just tell those parasites, if you don't have children by the time you're 30, well, you're not going to inherit your citizenship to any children right? Here, enjoy your money. Just give them money in ways that the present value of the money you give is the same with the value of citizenship.
This will not work in US alone.
Look at truly messed up country with very poor people. Those poor countries can cause problems you know. They cause terrorism etc.
Poor countries have low valuation. Citizenship of ethiopia is probably worth $1k. Perhaps, some American can buy tons of Ethiopia's citizenship and "vote" better? Help the poor in win win ways?
Americans are obviously wiser than Syrians or Iraqis. Buy tons of citizenships from the Syrians and vote your way to make those countries better too. Better than sending bombs I bet. Some countries fall to civil war? Over them a way out.
That country can rent some regions to you, you govern. Obviously you can govern well right? Give them back their regions after 50 years. Hell, you can buy it actually.
Some Yazidis or Christians got their land seized by Isis? Tell those christians, we'll bomb Isis, half of your land is ours.
The yazidis and christians in ISIS held teritory will think. My land value used to be $50k. With ISIS, the value will be $0. Ah I just lost $25k and ISIS is death.
Jews wants more land? Offer those displaced people a fair offer. Do something. Perhaps some regulation need to be in place so this don't get misused. A state shouldn't create civil war so they can buy land more cheaply. But shit happens and we can make a fair deal to those in deep shit.
Basically we just uses what's working in corporation and extend that to the states.
Another benefit is you are less likely to have to accommodate people that are different than you.
Imagine Alice and Bob have dual citizenship in Arab and Singapore. Alice is secular and Bob is religious. How would they vote?
Currently Alice will vote for secularism and Bob will vote for more religion. What we have is a mixed middle way state where minority have to put up to majority and the majority often make concession to minority.
If citizenship is like stocks, how would Alice and Bob vote? They will vote the exact same way. Yes. Alice will move to Arab and Bob would move to secular Singapore. How their countries are governed do not matter to them anymore.
All that matter to them is how much ROI they got from their citizenships (dividend plus growth of citizenship valuation).
Alice, being secular, is aware that Arab is a religious country. She lives in Singapore anyway. Arab religious laws do not affect her in anyway. She knows that many investors in Arab are used to religious rules. Those investors do not want strip dancing to suddenly becoming legal in Arab Saudi. So Alice, being a profit seeking citizen or stakeholders will vote for whatever makes her country attractive to immigrants. She will vote for religious Arab.
Alice lives in Singapore. She votes for secular parties in Singapore.
Bob?
The same.
Alice and Bob votes for whatever maximizes return of their citizenship. If they don't like living in one country, they simply move to another.
The only downside of this is that it's a bit undemocratic. Bob, that lives in Arab votes to govern how Alice lives. Alice that lives in Singapore votes for how Bob lives in Arab. However, their interests are still properly aligned. Bob and Alice want to maximize their return on citizenship/states' stock.
The interests of the population is still protected. If the population isn't happy, the population will just leave, lowering the market value of standard visa and lowering the value citizenship.
It's like corporation. I can't vote for Microsoft' CEO. Yet, as a customer of microsoft, Microsoft do care about me right? Hell. Customers are kings even more than voters under capitalism. Profitable customers at least. Just like customers interests are well served under capitalism, population interests are well served under this states as corporation kind of arrangements.
If you think it's too much deviation from democracy, then start small first. See if it works.
Last edited:
