Consequences of world citizenship?

[Machjo]

What would be your thoughts on world citizenship? Good thing? Bad thing? Why? Pros and cons?

Personally, I'd be in favour of it mainly for the following reasons:

1. It would expand the freedoms we already have to allowing us to move, travel, study, seek work, etc. anywhere in the world.
2. It would increase international understanding by allowing for more international relations at the grassroots.
3. It would allow for a more efficient distribution of world popuations as we move closer to where the resources are unconstrained by artificial national boundaries.

As for some disadvantages, it would essentially eliminate certain forms of left-leaning ideologies, such as communism most definitely and most forms of socialism, simply because any state practicing these would automatially attract the poorest and repel wealtheir taxpayers. Probably about as far left as any sustainable society could go then would be social corporatism, which is such a watered down version of socialism that it can barely be called socialism, as all it really aims at doing is democratize the workplace.

Certain right-leaning ideologies would likely have to go too, seeing after all that the military and intelligence agencies would have to hire any qualified citizen, who of couse could come from any country. So essentially about as far right as any government could go while remaining sustainable would likely be some form of conservative libertarianism.

Essentially, I'd see a system that would sacrifice some of our rights (public health care among them) but expand our freedoms (freedom to go where you want in the world with no government being allowed to hold you back unless you break its laws of course, in which case you're punished like any other citizen).

Your thoughts?

 

[CDNBear]

I like the idea, but would like to see the Rodenbury style altruistic version.

 

[Trotz]

1. It would expand the freedoms we already have to allowing us to move, travel, study, seek work, etc. anywhere in the world.

What citizenship do you currently have? Most of these things are already possible with a Canadian passport and citizenship! The principle difference would be in countries which do not have access to Western Europe, Canada and the United States and principally this includes everywhere from Eastern Europe and between East Asia and South Africa.

2. It would increase international understanding by allowing for more international relations at the grassroots.

I doubt this as current governments are not transparent (as wikileaks will indicate) and the same trends will continue in whatever forms of government survive (just because we drop the federal governments in favour of one world federal government; does not mean there are no longer provincial and state governments...)

3. It would allow for a more efficient distribution of world popuations as we move closer to where the resources are unconstrained by artificial national boundaries.

A common citizenship regime would not be a one way street, with Africans and Asians jumping on the next boat to Canada. There are individuals like myself, and multiple Canadians, who would take their savings and move abroad to Africa and purchase farmland on the dime. Before the decade, I could have a farm up and 8 children without difficulty. Persumably, I would hope, a world government would do a more efficient job of policing than what passes for policing in the typical African Junta!

It's not just Africa, as there are countries in South East Asia and Latin America where homes and property are insanely cheap (on a Canadian comparison) but legally I can never own them.

As for some disadvantages, it would essentially eliminate certain forms of left-leaning ideologies, such as communism most definitely and most forms of socialism, simply because any state practicing these would automatially attract the poorest and repel wealtheir taxpayers. Probably about as far left as any sustainable society could go then would be social corporatism, which is such a watered down version of socialism that it can barely be called socialism, as all it really aims at doing is democratize the workplace.

Corporate welfare is all about the means of subsistence and most people's subsistence is not the same as Canadians, i.e. the suburb home, 2.1. kids and automobile.

Much like in Cuba, they wouldn't show Michael Mooore's healthcare film because most Cubans didn't get that. Corporate welfare on a world scale, averaging in Africa and countries like Vietnam, will probably amount to a free pot of rice and a .22 caliber (if you get sick).

You can reach a Canadian norm on a world scale but it'ld take decades (or centuries) of union campaigning.

Certain right-leaning ideologies would likely have to go too, seeing after all that the military and intelligence agencies would have to hire any qualified citizen, who of couse could come from any country. So essentially about as far right as any government could go while remaining sustainable would likely be some form of conservative libertarianism.

On the Federal Level but a common citizenship regime would mean you'll probably end up with exclusive far left and far right communes around the world (most principally in Africa and other regions where farmland can be bought for a minimum).

Essentially, I'd see a system that would sacrifice some of our rights (public health care among them) but expand our freedoms (freedom to go where you want in the world with no government being allowed to hold you back unless you break its laws of course, in which case you're punished like any other citizen).

Your thoughts?

A world government would end up with the lowest common denominator. We'll get "Ghanese Healthcare" combined with "Chinese Freedom of Speech" and "English Gunlaws".

 

[YukonJack]

I, for one, would not want to be a fellow citizen of anyone from Sudan, Oman, Yemen, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Burma (or whatever the hell it's called now), Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria or Burkana Faso, naming just a few, that give me the shivers.

 

[Machjo]

What citizenship do you currently have? Most of these things are already possible with a Canadian passport and citizenship! The principle difference would be in countries which do not have access to Western Europe, Canada and the United States and principally this includes everywhere from Eastern Europe and between East Asia and South Africa.

Can you currently just pack your bags and move south of the border to take that job offer a friend just offered you without going through at least some bureaucratic hoops? There's no denying this would mean an extension of freedom.

I doubt this as current governments are not transparent (as wikileaks will indicate) and the same trends will continue in whatever forms of government survive (just because we drop the federal governments in favour of one world federal government; does not mean there are no longer provincial and state governments...)

Though I am in favour of world government, that is separete from the question in this thread. In this thread I only brought up the question of common citizenship, not world government. Now I do believe that world citizenship woudl essentially force some kind of decentralized world fedeation since I don't see how activities could be coordinated otherwise, but there may be some who would disagree with me believing that we could have sovereign states but common world citizenship, similar to Alberta and Ontario being separate while still accepting each other's citizens as their owm.

A common citizenship regime would not be a one way street, with Africans and Asians jumping on the next boat to Canada. There are individuals like myself, and multiple Canadians, who would take their savings and move abroad to Africa and purchase farmland on the dime. Before the decade, I could have a farm up and 8 children without difficulty. Persumably, I would hope, a world government would do a more efficient job of policing than what passes for policing in the typical African Junta!

Fully agreed. You see, more freedom! Now of course Africa is not without its problems. But a common world citizenship would mean that if you want to move there and establish yourself there, that would be entirely up to you.

It's not just Africa, as there are countries in South East Asia and Latin America where homes and property are insanely cheap (on a Canadian comparison) but legally I can never own them.

With a common world citizenship, all citizens are entitled to the same freedoms and responsibilities. So if you choose to move there, then you have the same rights as anyone else.

Corporate welfare is all about the means of subsistence and most people's subsistence is not the same as Canadians, i.e. the suburb home, 2.1. kids and automobile.

Much like in Cuba, they wouldn't show Michael Mooore's healthcare film because most Cubans didn't get that. Corporate welfare on a world scale, averaging in Africa and countries like Vietnam, will probably amount to a free pot of rice and a .22 caliber (if you get sick).

You can reach a Canadian norm on a world scale but it'ld take decades (or centuries) of union campaigning.

My point exactly. Socialism as we know it now in Canada would be unsustainable. Not to say that governments wouldn't help the poor, but any help would be more in the form of eliminating obstacles to helping themselves, or helping them find work. Beyond that though, most would be on their own. And if we consider the cost of living in Canada compared to most countries, the poor would quickly recognize that it would be in their best interests to stay in a poor country where things are a little more affordable than here in Canada.

On the Federal Level but a common citizenship regime would mean you'll probably end up with exclusive far left and far right communes around the world (most principally in Africa and other regions where farmland can be bought for a minimum). [

Good riddance. That way they could isolate themselves from the rest and so no longer infect the rest of us.

A world government would end up with the lowest common denominator. We'll get "Ghanese Healthcare" combined with "Chinese Freedom of Speech" and "English Gunlaws".

I doubt it. As far as public health care goes, you'd likely be right about "Ghanese Healthcare", though if you save your own money, you'd have access to US-style private health care.

As for Chinese freedom of speech, not quite. I'd found in China that many Chinese who knew a foreign language other than English could access all kinds of information since the government just didn't have the qualified sensors to catch it. In a world federation, there's be so many people moving around speaking so many languages, it would be next to impssible to sensor information even if the government wanted to. And as for English gun laws, some countries or cities might adopt such a practice, but other countries, especially those that rely on hunting for sustenance, would not. So that woudl liekly depend on where you go.

I, for one, would not want to be a fellow citizen of anyone from Sudan, Oman, Yemen, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Burma (or whatever the hell it's called now), Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria or Burkana Faso, naming just a few, that give me the shivers.

We're not talking about Fidel Castro moving next door. We're talking about common citizens. Why, what does a typical Sudanese look like and think like? Sounds like you have a few prejudices there.

I remember a certain Canadian who'd break into people's homes and steal underwear, rape women, and even kill some. I guess you wouldn't want to live next door to a Canadian either now, would you, especially if you have a daughter living at home.

 

[darkbeaver]

One world government, the pipe dreams of Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan and always the International Bankers. Be very careful what you wish for. I am already a citizen of this planet and I don't require a piece of paper from some psychopathic sleaze bag banker to prove it. Without the balance provided by nationalism human progress (if that's what we're into) would consist of only what's good for the rich and powerful. What you advocate is central dictatorial totalitarianism exactly the bankers fondest wish. They know that this is their only chance for continuation and they will eliminate as many of us as they have to on the bloody road to that end. You are dreaming Machjo. Someone mentioned "the lowest common denominator" and that is exactly the human maintenance they dream of providing, just enough to keep labour in chains for perpetuity. Bread water and hard unrewarded labour and nothing but, the fondest wet dream of tyrants since the beginning.

 

[The Old Medic]

If you want the impoverished populations of the world to move wholesale into the more advanced countries, then World Citizenship is the way to go.

You could not regulate immigration anywhere with World Citizenship.

You could not control any countries government, or wealth with Universal Citizenship.

The massive populations of the "have nots" would overwhelm the votes of the industrialized countries, resulting in a massive decrease in our standard of living, and a marginal increase in theirs.

The very concept of a "world citizenship is nothing but a socialist pipe dream.

 

[YukonJack]

If you want the impoverished populations of the world to move wholesale into the more advanced countries, then World Citizenship is the way to go.

You could not regulate immigration anywhere with World Citizenship.

You could not control any countries government, or wealth with Universal Citizenship.

The massive populations of the "have nots" would overwhelm the votes of the industrialized countries, resulting in a massive decrease in our standard of living, and a marginal increase in theirs.

The very concept of a "world citizenship is nothing but a socialist pipe dream.

Well, isn't that the platform Obama got elected on? Have we already forgotten the lady in Detroit who was convinced that Obama will pay her food bills, her mortgage and her car payments? Have we forgotten, in less than two short years all the broken promises of hope and change?

If anyone thinks that there are not enough free-loaders now, they should excercise their imagination and visualize what disaster unlimited relocation of people with global/universal citizenship would mean.

 

[DaSleeper]

I'm a realist, so, I think the OP will probably work a hundred years from now when all the world's populations have mixed to a point where race and customs have blended to a degree that can only be imagined in the future.

 

[Machjo]

If you want the impoverished populations of the world to move wholesale into the more advanced countries, then World Citizenship is the way to go.

You could not regulate immigration anywhere with World Citizenship.

You could not control any countries government, or wealth with Universal Citizenship.

The massive populations of the "have nots" would overwhelm the votes of the industrialized countries, resulting in a massive decrease in our standard of living, and a marginal increase in theirs.

The very concept of a "world citizenship is nothing but a socialist pipe dream.

I guess that's the problem. I tend to approach regulation and control with caution. As for the have-nots, if they're not a burden on us, what's wrong with them moving here if they think they can live a better life here. I don't think that would happen though. As soon as the population exceeds housing, the cost of houases would go up, thus making Canada less atractive to the poorest all of a sudden. Do you not trust the free market?

As for the have-nots voting themselves help, they can do that only to a degree. First off, they must move here. Since there would not be enough houses initially, many would abandon the idea. Secondly, seeing that there are more poor than rich, even the poor would realise that there would be no way to create a social system to cover them all. So they'd be more likely to turn to social corporatism instead, since all that would do is promote a more democratic workplace, meaning that they can better negotiate fair wages for the work they actually do. In such a system, there would not be freebies anymore, but merely an ability to get a fair wage for fair work.

I love it when a person promotes regulation and control and then accuses others of being socialist! Gotta love it.

Well, isn't that the platform Obama got elected on? Have we already forgotten the lady in Detroit who was convinced that Obama will pay her food bills, her mortgage and her car payments? Have we forgotten, in less than two short years all the broken promises of hope and change?

If anyone thinks that there are not enough free-loaders now, they should excercise their imagination and visualize what disaster unlimited relocation of people with global/universal citizenship would mean.

Who said anything about forced relocation? I'm talking about freedom. You oppose that?And who said anything about socialism? Quite frankly, socialism would be unsustainable in a world with common citizenship for all. About as far left as any sustainable government could possibly go in such a world would be social corporatism, and even that only if well thought out. But mainstream socialism would simply be unsustainable. How you get your pie in the sky dream that somehow regulation and control are the capitalist ideals and that somehow a world federation would be able to sustain socialism is beyond me.

So I guess Winston Churchill was just some socialist ideot too was he?

 

[talloola]

the u.s. has approx 300 million, and if their unemployed could just come over the 49th and get a job
any old time they felt like it, we would be competing with them for our own jobs, and with our population
we shouldn't be hoping for any world citizenship at all.

And that woman who thought obama would feed and house her, is just 'stupid', those types are everywhere, thinking thoughts that only 'their' own head can make up, which has no connection to obama at all.

 

[Machjo]

the u.s. has approx 300 million, and if their unemployed could just come over the 49th and get a job
any old time they felt like it, we would be competing with them for our own jobs, and with our population
we shouldn't be hoping for any world citizenship at all.

And that woman who thought obama would feed and house her, is just 'stupid', those types are everywhere, thinking thoughts that only 'their' own head can make up, which has no connection to obama at all.

That's too simplistic as it's not just limited to overall employment. In some cases, and American might have skills Canada needs, and vice versa. Or a Canadian might come up with a brilliant marketing idea that could work in the US but not Canada, or vice versa, etc.

Then, beyond economics, we have Canadians (I among them at one point) who get all caught up and tangled in the immigration bureaucracy because their spouce is not born in Canada. No one should ever have to go through that kind of hell. Looking at it that way, Canadians are affected by immigration bureaucracy just as much as foreigners are. So there is also a human side to it that goes well beyond just economics. IN essence, it's an extension of the Entightenment ideas that gave birth to the Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen and the US Bill of Rights. It's the right of a person to walk God's green earth without interference from government overextending its mandate over God's soil.

Again, it's essentially a fight between freedom on the one hand, and regulation and control on the other.

 

[talloola]

That's too simplistic as it's not just limited to overall employment. In some cases, and American might have skills Canada needs, and vice versa. Or a Canadian might come up with a brilliant marketing idea that could work in the US but not Canada, or vice versa, etc.

Then, beyond economics, we have Canadians (I among them at one point) who get all caught up and tangled in the immigration bureaucracy because their spouce is not born in Canada. No one should ever have to go through that kind of hell. Looking at it that way, Canadians are affected by immigration bureaucracy just as much as foreigners are. So there is also a human side to it that goes well beyond just economics. IN essence, it's an extension of the Entightenment ideas that gave birth to the Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen and the US Bill of Rights. It's the right of a person to walk God's green earth without interference from government overextending its mandate over God's soil.

Again, it's essentially a fight between freedom on the one hand, and regulation and control on the other.

positions are allready filled by canadians or americans in each other's country when 'it' is necessary,
eg. teachers going to the u.s., but to have the border completely open to anyone going back and forth
to work, would destroy our employment for our people, we don't have enough people to compete with their
numbers.

 

[Machjo]

positions are allready filled by canadians or americans in each other's country when 'it' is necessary,
eg. teachers going to the u.s., but to have the border completely open to anyone going back and forth
to work, would destroy our employment for our people, we don't have enough people to compete with their
numbers.

Clearly yu want to limit it to the economic realm. Fair enough. But then let's look at it as a win win situation. The US economy might not be doing well today, ut what about in 100 years from now? Imagine that then our situation is reversed. Certainly a tradition of world citizenship would mean that no matter how difficult things would be in the US, they'd still allow Canadians to freely go there to find work if our situation were worse. But to be fair, if we expect that from them in our hard times, then they have the right to expect the same from us in their hard times. So let Americans come here to find work. Is taht not what the spirit of universal brotherhood is about? I'm not a Christian myself, but I still accept its spirit. I'm not asking that we give them money, but rather that we remove some government interference where it is excessive so that we allow people to fend for themselves if needs be. I that asking too much? And of course those who want to give to charities are more than welcome to do so.

Remember too that we share common descendants among the thirteen colonists, some of whom were Loyalists who'd come to Canada.

 

[JLM]

What would be your thoughts on world citizenship? Good thing? Bad thing? Why? Pros and cons?

Personally, I'd be in favour of it mainly for the following reasons:

1. It would expand the freedoms we already have to allowing us to move, travel, study, seek work, etc. anywhere in the world.
2. It would increase international understanding by allowing for more international relations at the grassroots.
3. It would allow for a more efficient distribution of world popuations as we move closer to where the resources are unconstrained by artificial national boundaries.

As for some disadvantages, it would essentially eliminate certain forms of left-leaning ideologies, such as communism most definitely and most forms of socialism, simply because any state practicing these would automatially attract the poorest and repel wealtheir taxpayers. Probably about as far left as any sustainable society could go then would be social corporatism, which is such a watered down version of socialism that it can barely be called socialism, as all it really aims at doing is democratize the workplace.

Certain right-leaning ideologies would likely have to go too, seeing after all that the military and intelligence agencies would have to hire any qualified citizen, who of couse could come from any country. So essentially about as far right as any government could go while remaining sustainable would likely be some form of conservative libertarianism.

Essentially, I'd see a system that would sacrifice some of our rights (public health care among them) but expand our freedoms (freedom to go where you want in the world with no government being allowed to hold you back unless you break its laws of course, in which case you're punished like any other citizen).

Your thoughts?

I think the idea is both good and bad. Good for people in Somalia, Rwanda and BAngladesh, bad for people in Canada, the U.S. and Great Britain. :smile:

 

[gerryh]

I think the idea is both good and bad. Good for people in Somalia, Rwanda and BAngladesh, bad for people in Canada, the U.S. and Great Britain. :smile:

why?

 

[JLM]

why?

Think about it for 15 seconds and if you don't get back to me I'll explain it to you.

 

[gerryh]

Think about it for 15 seconds and if you don't get back to me I'll explain it to you.

Sorry, complete free movement worldwide I see as a big plus. The ability to live and work anywhere one pleases. That's a plus for me and for those in the "3rd world".

So, why would it be a negative for Canadians.

 

[Machjo]

I think the idea is both good and bad. Good for people in Somalia, Rwanda and BAngladesh, bad for people in Canada, the U.S. and Great Britain. :smile:

How so? If we kept our current socialist system as it now stands, I fully agree with you. However, if we moved towards something more moderate and transportable, like a social corporatist or alternatively more libertarian economic system, then:

1. the cost of living in our countries minus guaranteed social services would make our countries not so attractive to most of them anyway.
2. We would save money on unnecessary immigration bureaucracy which could go towards paying off our debts.
3. it would give both us and them access to a larger labour market and consumer market.
4. territorial wards would become meaningless. For instance, any Palestinian who'd want to live on Israeli land would be totaly free to do so, and same for an Israeli on Palestinian land. And since we'd lal have common citizenship, voting might have to be restricted to residents. In other words, we'd be allowed to vote for the local and national governments of where we reside at any given time. This would mean that if a people want to move to a certain land, all they'd have to do is move there.

Think about it for 15 seconds and if you don't get back to me I'll explain it to you.

Sorry. I've thought about it, and I still can't see the negative (again, assuming that we're adaptable enough to restructure our current socialist system towards a more social corporatist or liberarian one).

Now as a temporary transitonal phase, I could see granting governments the right to expect people entering their repective countries to know the local lingo. But otherwise, non-socialist countries ought to adapt just fine.

 

[JLM]

Sorry, complete free movement worldwide I see as a big plus. The ability to live and work anywhere one pleases. That's a plus for me and for those in the "3rd world".

So, why would it be a negative for Canadians.

I think we've already seen what happens in Canada when the "floodgates" are opened up as they partially have been to Asians since Expo '86, which has contributed significantly to our crime stats. Desperate people on the move will create a lot of havoc.