Consequences of world citizenship?

[gerryh]

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.

:roll: Have you met altonef? You and him would probably have a lot in common. http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/97770-new-political-party-forming.html

 

[Machjo]

:roll: Have you met altonef? You and him would probably have a lot in common. http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/97770-new-political-party-forming.html

Sweet talker you. You really are a charm aren't you.

 

[Trotz]

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.

Might be negative for the unskilled labourers and the morons in society with millions in debt.


On the other hand, those of us in the middle class with assets between $100,000 and $1,000,000; as a result of the common citizenship regime, can form expat communities in Latin America, Africa and Asia (connected through internet), which would be recognized as legal as we would be citizens with rights to property and self-defence.


I imagine a relationship similar to the richest village in China

In China's richest village, peasants are all shareholders now - by order of the party | World news | The Guardian

The expats can own all the farmland and capital and can outsource labour from poorer villages. I guess it admittedly does sound similar to colonialism back in Rhodesia and South Africa but no one has mentioned seizing land at gunpoint or denying the local residents from entering politics, property can be bought for cheap in the third world and our money can be used to actually build up infastructure and a modern economy.

 

[Machjo]

The expats can own all the farmland and capital and can outsource labour from poorer villages. I guess it admittedly does sound similar to colonialism back in Rhodesia and South Africa but no one has mentioned seizing land at gunpoint or denying the local residents from entering politics, property can be bought for cheap in the third world and our money can be used to actually build up infastructure and a modern economy.

It would be distinctly different from colonialism though in that no other country would be dictating to the Rhodesian or South African Governments. All countries would be equal. So while a Canadian could move to Rhodesia or South Africa and buy a home there, settle there, vote there, run for politics there, etc. A Rhodesian or South African could just as easily move to Canada and do the very same thing. And just as the Canadian would have to obey local and national laws abroad, so the others in Canada would have to do the same in Canada. No different from an Ontarian moving to Quebec today.

 

[CurioToo]

Somehow I don't see this as a long term success....

Man has always taken pride in self-identification which usually means homeland, family, language, rituals, habits, etc.

I know we travel but there is a pride in our homeland wherever it is and to remove this sounds like removing our last names (family names) and becoming virtually anonymous among our fellow travellers.

The joy of travel is you can always return home. Belonging is a keystone and anchor to man's pride and
place in our world. There are very few over our historical records who "belong" to the world - identified
with personal deed or accomplishment rather than nation.

 

[captain morgan]

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.



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.

Ask the Dutch gvt how their immigration experiment is going?