3 ms·

Sincere curiosity: are you, on the same grounds, against citizenship? Edit: to clarify, I mean against citizenship as a birthright.

by jkn 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago
Yes, unfortunately I get one imposed on me. It is as though through the simple act of being born I'm signatory party to some contract that I have never even been allowed to read and for which there was no negotiation possible. Without having a nationality suddenly a lot of things are no longer possible (such as travel or residency). I have no right to a pension but pay in to them, my children are not in any way subsidized by state sponsorships for parents with children ("kinderbijslag" it is called here), but I do pay my taxes and so on. I opt out to the point that I'm able to but that doesn't go nearly far enough. I still think there is a net positive effect, even if that same effect might be achievable by some other means. I'm not an anarchist, I just don't believe that there is a good reason for nation states and such because in general they are just used as vehicles to control people or to motivate them to do bad things rather than to provide them with services that are for the common good. In that sense they are like democracy, it's what we've got because we have nothing better but there are plenty of warts and issues with the concept. Probably my views are pretty extremist but having seen a lot of misery in people close to me grounded in nationality it is an easy one to come by. For me nationality/citizenship is a matter of choosing the least bad option, not the best. We have nothing better so this is what I'll have to live with, it's like the weather, I am incapable of making significant change so I make the best of it.
- jkn 14y ago
  I share you view. Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, many (most?) people are against unearned privilege, only when they don't have it.
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  I agree with you. If nationality/citizenship weren't enforced on people, suddenly so many things would be better. We wouldn't have opressive governments - people would just leave the country and left it to go bankrupt. Countries would be forced to compete on giving the best quality of life to attract labour force. Corrupt governments with inneficient policies and economy would be forced to improve or go broke. We could have decent services offered for people across the globe without huge public debts - just look at how many NGOs are capable of offering help to remote areas basically on donations and good will, now imagine it on scale. I still have hope, though.
  - jarek 14y ago
    > We wouldn't have opressive governments - people would just leave the country and left it to go bankrupt. This happens now. Governments might try to prevent people from leaving but at that point they are only buying time. > Countries would be forced to compete on giving the best quality of life to attract labour force. This, to some approximation regarding which parts of labour force are sought, happens now. > Corrupt governments with inneficient policies and economy would be forced to improve or go broke. This, to a degree, happens now.
    - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
      Allow me to disagree. China is an opressive government, but that fact gets conveniently ignored by other countries who use it as a factory floor. My own country (Brazil) is riddled with corruption for decades and still economy moves forward driven by credit and consumption. Somalia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Laos, Burma, just to name a few, are plagued with porvertry as result of bad governance and ethnic genocides but the only movement for change you see there is voluntary work paid by donations - you don't see USA or Europe interested in democracy there because they don't have oil to get sucked or money to buy their crap.
      - jarek 14y ago
        People, particularly rich people, do leave China in considerable numbers. The same with Brazil. States with corrupt or inefficient governments do go bankrupt, sizeable amounts of people leave one way or another, and some of them are forced to improve (for some values of improvement) as terms of their financial rescue. All the things you mentioned do happen, the issue is that few things concerning large organizations happen fast. Even in near-perfect-capitalist Silicon Valley environment organizations as troubled as Yahoo or Palm can keep on going for quite a while.
    - jkn 14y ago
      Governments might try to prevent people from leaving but at that point they are only buying time. That's not the problem with citizenship. The problem is, other countries will refuse to let you in, or make your life miserable and you won't have the same rights as citizens.
brudgers 14y ago
In my opinion, Political affiliations ought to be chosen by mature persons not forced upon infants. No state should have claim upon a person simply because of where they were born or spent their childhood because the logic which underlies such claims is the same logic which underlies chattel slavery. The nexus is most obvious in places such as North Korea, however, if one considers the proportion of states which one considers repressive it will probably represent several percent of the entities one recognizes as states. While I am probably not an anarchist, I find utility in their analysis of politics and nationalism.

Sincere curiosity: are you, on the same grounds, against citizenship? Edit: to clarify, I mean against citizenship as a birthright.

by jkn 14y ago

Sincere curiosity: are you, on the same grounds, against citizenship? Edit: to clarify, I mean against citizenship as a birthright.

jacquesm 14y ago

Yes, unfortunately I get one imposed on me. It is as though through the simple act of being born I'm signatory party to some contract that I have never even been allowed to read and for which there was no negotiation possible. Without having a nationality suddenly a lot of things are no longer possible (such as travel or residency). I have no right to a pension but pay in to them, my children are not in any way subsidized by state sponsorships for parents with children ("kinderbijslag" it is called here), but I do pay my taxes and so on. I opt out to the point that I'm able to but that doesn't go nearly far enough. I still think there is a net positive effect, even if that same effect might be achievable by some other means. I'm not an anarchist, I just don't believe that there is a good reason for nation states and such because in general they are just used as vehicles to control people or to motivate them to do bad things rather than to provide them with services that are for the common good. In that sense they are like democracy, it's what we've got because we have nothing better but there are plenty of warts and issues with the concept. Probably my views are pretty extremist but having seen a lot of misery in people close to me grounded in nationality it is an easy one to come by. For me nationality/citizenship is a matter of choosing the least bad option, not the best. We have nothing better so this is what I'll have to live with, it's like the weather, I am incapable of making significant change so I make the best of it.

jkn 14y ago
I share you view. Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, many (most?) people are against unearned privilege, only when they don't have it.
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
I agree with you. If nationality/citizenship weren't enforced on people, suddenly so many things would be better. We wouldn't have opressive governments - people would just leave the country and left it to go bankrupt. Countries would be forced to compete on giving the best quality of life to attract labour force. Corrupt governments with inneficient policies and economy would be forced to improve or go broke. We could have decent services offered for people across the globe without huge public debts - just look at how many NGOs are capable of offering help to remote areas basically on donations and good will, now imagine it on scale. I still have hope, though.
- jarek 14y ago
  > We wouldn't have opressive governments - people would just leave the country and left it to go bankrupt. This happens now. Governments might try to prevent people from leaving but at that point they are only buying time. > Countries would be forced to compete on giving the best quality of life to attract labour force. This, to some approximation regarding which parts of labour force are sought, happens now. > Corrupt governments with inneficient policies and economy would be forced to improve or go broke. This, to a degree, happens now.
  - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
    Allow me to disagree. China is an opressive government, but that fact gets conveniently ignored by other countries who use it as a factory floor. My own country (Brazil) is riddled with corruption for decades and still economy moves forward driven by credit and consumption. Somalia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Laos, Burma, just to name a few, are plagued with porvertry as result of bad governance and ethnic genocides but the only movement for change you see there is voluntary work paid by donations - you don't see USA or Europe interested in democracy there because they don't have oil to get sucked or money to buy their crap.
    - jarek 14y ago
      People, particularly rich people, do leave China in considerable numbers. The same with Brazil. States with corrupt or inefficient governments do go bankrupt, sizeable amounts of people leave one way or another, and some of them are forced to improve (for some values of improvement) as terms of their financial rescue. All the things you mentioned do happen, the issue is that few things concerning large organizations happen fast. Even in near-perfect-capitalist Silicon Valley environment organizations as troubled as Yahoo or Palm can keep on going for quite a while.
  - jkn 14y ago
    Governments might try to prevent people from leaving but at that point they are only buying time. That's not the problem with citizenship. The problem is, other countries will refuse to let you in, or make your life miserable and you won't have the same rights as citizens.

brudgers 14y ago

In my opinion, Political affiliations ought to be chosen by mature persons not forced upon infants. No state should have claim upon a person simply because of where they were born or spent their childhood because the logic which underlies such claims is the same logic which underlies chattel slavery. The nexus is most obvious in places such as North Korea, however, if one considers the proportion of states which one considers repressive it will probably represent several percent of the entities one recognizes as states. While I am probably not an anarchist, I find utility in their analysis of politics and nationalism.