Citizenship is not an asset
@karov responded to one of my blog posts with the idea of "why not let people sell their citizenship?". This was in response to my post that you can buy US citizenship as a foreign investor. This of course allows me to explore Karov's point of view which in conclusion I find unreasonable.
Why do I find the idea of selling citizenship unreasonable? The reasons will be listed below:
- Citizenship isn't something everyone will be willing to sell. Depending on how much a person put into a particular country, and how much they have to lose by selling citizenship, it could very well be priceless to some people. For example, a person who built a career in a particular country, has friends in that country, a family in that country, owns property in that country, how much could citizenship be worth to them? This is excluding any shared history, or politics which of course likely has an influence as well. So from a social exchange perspective in order for a person to sell their citizenship they must believe there is something to gain on the other end which is equal to or superior to what they already put in or have earned over time in their country.
- Citizenship is not an asset. Citizenship is a responsibility. To be a "good citizen" requires effort, work, sacrifice. A citizen must pay taxes to their government. A citizen must abide by the laws of their government (even when they disagree). A citizen must do stuff like jury duty. In exchange for this, a citizen is given access to the opportunities that only a citizen can get. Really good citizens who are putting in the most effort are often the citizens who receive the least harassment (at a minimum) and at a maximum favorable treatment. The definition of good citizen varies from country to country but we do know every country which has taxes will expect it's citizens to pay the taxes. Every country which has laws will expect it's citizens to follow the laws. Every country which requires service (whether in the form of jury duty or military) will expect it's citizens to serve. These expectations place responsibilities on the citizen and while a citizen can renounce citizenship there is often no where else to go as any other country will have the same responsibilities.
So from a responsibility perspective, what does a citizen of one country gain by selling citizenship to another from another country? Absolutely nothing that I can see as it's hard to put a price on how much it is worth to the person who has it. The person who doesn't have it can very easily put a price on it because it's something they want to have rather than something they'll have to lose. The cost of maintaining citizenship in the form of taxes, duties, sacrifices (required military or other service), can be extremely high and it's not possible to know this in the beginning.
Conclusion
When someone is a citizen (such as of the United States), they can only know the value of US citizenship in comparison to something else. Most US citizens do not travel so they never learn the value of US citizenship. For example, if you are a US citizen who does travel then you quickly learn that the US passport is one of the best in the world. This means just by being a US citizen you get one of the top passports. What people who desire to be US citizens may not understand though is that the US citizen pays one of the highest tax rates in the world with one of the most aggressive tax agencies (taxes are owed even for expats living outside the US). In essence, to be a US citizen has it's pros and it's cons which have to be weighed against being a citizen of somewhere else. An offer of cash in exchange for being a citizen of nowhere would offer no passport which is an immediate con (one of the biggest), and also no taxes (which could be a pro).
If there are no taxes then you have to hire security from the private sector and there is no guarantee this will be any cheaper than paying taxes. If you're ex military or can protect yourself it may be cheaper for you but for the mother of five it is probably cheaper to pay taxes to the government. Do I see people selling their citizenship for dollars? I don't see it happening and consider it unrealistic. I do see people renouncing citizenship in exchange for citizenship somewhere else they deem to offer more favorable treatment but this will depend on each person and what each has to gain or lose from the decision.
The United States in terms of opportunities is one of the best places to be if not the best (depending on your industry). The United States is also one of the riskier places to be. So if you're someone willing to take high risk approaches you can become rich in the United States. This ability to take risks and get rich is not available in every country. The United States also has a very large economy, very unlikely to ever be invaded, very unlikely to ever have a civil war or revolution, compared to many other places. As far as corruption goes, the United States is not one of the most corrupt countries and while the United States could do better it could also be much worse.
Anarchists will say: "taxation is theft", "The United States is a Corporation", "Required service is coercive", "the law is unjust". I don't really argue against these statements philosophically. On a practical basis it is smarter to pay taxes than to evade taxes. If the US is a corporation or not, it requires taxes and it's against the law not to pay them. It's smart to either become a conscientious objector or renounce rather than confront and agitate if faced with required service. I base the "smart" on likely consequences and nothing else.
To avoid harassment, jail, lawsuits, drone strikes or whatever else could be the consequence; it makes sense to abide where necessary. If there is a nation which does offer tax free living, with no required service, and which does have just laws? I would like to learn about such a nation.
hmmm adoption could be a legal loophole. If you adopt an adult from a foreign country, that person will not become US citizen with that. But you could sell your US citizenship to foreign families for whom you adopt one of their children and as life is, in some countries you can more or less "purchase your age".
Since these seem to be viable ways of doing so I strongly assume there is also an active market for that.
But in those scenarios you aren't required to give anything up. When you adopt you don't lose your citizenship. That is barter but it's not selling your citizenship. It would be applying barter to sell an easy path to citizenship. Not all that different from invest in the US and get citizenship.
How does adopting an adult work? I never heard of that. Thought it only applies to children. Legal Zoom claims it is possible but I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for teaching me something new. Based on additional research it appears no citizenship rights pass to adults who get adopted but I don't know enough about the law to be certain. Still in theory, it is possible to give someone the American lifestyle with the opportunity to pursue citizenship.
Reference
I don't know much about adult adoption or adoption in general, just that it is common practice in case a close relative has for example a serious mental illness so you can make decisions for the person in question.
The path to citizenship is only possible for minors or those who pretend to be. And yes, you're right, you don't have to give up anything for that except maybe - speculating here - it's connected to some inheritance law that you have to leave the adopted child a minimum amount of your property.
I agree with you....i know what it took my elder brother to get to usa
Usa have proven to be the best place to be. Honestly ,i just have to admit it, USA is good. Its because some of the people their have mot travlled out to see the other world ,that why they wont really understand or know the privilege they have in USA.
this saying is just so true
As a citizen of a country, one has to carry his or her country name with pride. This shows patriotism. I cant imagine selling my citizenship for any reason..
It is priceless!
Citizenship - a responsibility? Sounds like a debt the government bestowed upon those born on the territory occupied by them. I didn't choose where to be born and I owe nothing to the filth in power. Fuck that. If anyone's willing to buy my shitty citizenship, or exchange, I'd do so gladly.
I suppose you can put it like that but it's a bit more complicated. There is history involved too. Suppose you have multiple generations of ancestors who fought and maybe died just to create the concept of citizen? Prior to citizens there were subjects. Is it really better to be a subject?
If you sell your citizenship then where do you go?
I never asked to be born in a specific place (I'd pick better), I never signed anything, I've never taken (or be granted) any money or privilege from "my" govt. So I owe them nothing. If they think me having a piece of paper with their logo on it make me their property, well, I beg to differ. They don't own me and I will die fighting while protecting my freedom rather then bow to the criminals in power.
And I can go wherever I want as long as I can get there.
Have you put this to the test? Have you ever paid a tax (including automatically added tax like VAT) or tried to cross national boarders without a passport?
Would you also agree that the (presumably) relative security you, your family and property enjoy has been given to you by the same accident of your birth and birthplace? In other words, that you have benefited from that chance birth and the work of your compatriots and ancestors?
Yes
Yes
No, you have no idea who I am so you can't really say anything like this about me.
Totally true, that's why I asked, albeit in rhetorical form. Could you expand on why you disagree with the statement?
Not gonna bother, really, I said enough already.
The law says you require a passport.
Who writes laws? A rotten and corrupt bunch of parasites and criminals, simple as that.
The laws exist to be followed no matter who wrote them.
I am willing
1 BTC, mate
While you did not choose where to be born, my point is you could have been born in a place much worse, with a lot less. I suppose you can see citizenship as a debt, but again can you show me how people live who are not either citizens, or enslaved, or prisoners of war?
Most people ultimately are born either into citizenship with the best hope being stability or they are born into strife, civil war, warlords, revolutions every 10-20 years, etc. So if by paying taxes, following laws, and being a good citizen you can avoid the fate of some of these others is it that much of a price to pay?
If there is an alternative, a place for people to live with no taxes, no war, no crime, no citizens, please show me? As far as I know, the best places to live even today require citizenship.
The argument you put forward is quite interesting and worth more discussion. The argument of we do not choose where we are born (we don't choose our nationality) is fundamentally a correct argument. It's just like people do not choose the race they are born into but the consequences of being born into that race are real regardless. That is my counter argument, that to be born a citizen of whatever country you were born into has consequences even if you didn't choose it. Other people will see you a certain way no matter how you see yourself.
Yeah, you have a point, enough to take a look at Rohingya people to know how bad can it be. Still, their distress is caused by states (namely both Myanmar and Bangladesh), not the absence of a state of their own.
You know, human society sucks and it has always been fucked in more than one way. If the only thing we're offered is shit, well, it doesn't mean we have to swallow it and ask for more. World's big. World's changing.
There are lesser-known micro countries without much of the shite you get in "real" states, but they have always been under the radar for the majority.
Do you think mafias, or non-state actors cannot cause problems? Terrorist groups have been known to pursue genocide. If some terrorist group attacks those who are stateless then who will come to their aid? Who will prevent total genocide?
Show me the ideal micro country which you deem better than real states?
Mafias? What do you think govt is if not the dominating mafia organization?
Funded by govts, Americans specifically. Remember Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? USA funded them, along with Al-Quaeda, ISIS and the rest. Those groups would never came to be if not for the govts, who are inherently evil and corrupt.
People themselves, a militia perhaps. A community is not that helpless when it's not suppressed by the state. People have grown fat stupid and complacent under the state, and that was its goal all along. As soon as this poison is removed, society might start evolving for real.
So your counter argument is we can have a legal mafia or an illegal mafia? So either way it's the same mafia just with a different front?
You do realize other governments have funded various terrorist groups and dictators too right? The United States isn't the only government in the world which has agencies that can do this. Once you realize it's not just the United States then you can make the point that governments fund terrorism. But you also have to understand that terrorist groups exist regardless of whether governments fund them.
The KKK existed before the CIA or FBI. The KKK was and is clearly a domestic terrorist organization. It was actually the FBI which helped dismantle the KKK if you look at the history. There is no reason to believe the KKK would not rise again if governments didn't exist to dismantle it or groups like it. What about those neo nazis who want to bring a new holocaust? The only thing preventing them from rising again is government agencies infiltrating their ranks.
How do you feel about governments doing these activities? Are you saying you'd rather see these activities done through the private sector, or are you saying they shouldn't be done at all?
How is a militia any different than a mafia? Think about it. If a group of people decide to form what you call a militia then how will the militia get funded unless by organized crime? If it's crime which funds it rather than taxes how do you separate it conceptually from just another street gang, or mafia, etc?
What would stop this group of armed war lords from doing whatever they want to whoever is less able to defend themselves?
United States is the so-called American dream for many people, the bad thing that looking for that dream many people from mainly Latin American countries have lost their lives trying to enter illegally.
When they manage to enter and apply for citizenship, in many cases they spend up to 10 years to see family members who are in their homeland, for example detach from the growth of children to give them a better future
It's not an asset in the sense that it is not properly with which one can dispose of as they wish. Though the case could be made that it is, since all property is under some form of restriction in Western states, it is too far a stretch.
It's not only a responsibly though, as you very one sidedly claim. There are clear benefits, such as participation in the political process (up to and including becoming a political figure) access to markets, welfare, healthcare (in most 1st world countries), protection when abroad, etc. That this is balanced by responsibilities does not diminish the benefits.
It's also interesting to note that some of the responsibilities you name, obeying laws chief among them, applies to all people in the territory of the state, not only citizens. The is also limited tax liability, and others. In some countries you also get some benefits, legal protection, healthcare, even as a foreigner.
I do agree that the idea of selling citizenship is far-fetched and misunderstands what citizenship is. I think this arises from the over-abstraction of what it is. We think for example that we sell our time to employers as work in exchange for money. That abstraction is useful, but really we actually do work, minute to minute we are doing some task or other. Similarly with citizenship it's useful to a degree to think of it as a thing of exchange but really there can be no exchange with the state, monarch or god. We are in a relationship but it is not with a peer and exchange only makes sense in peer to peer relationships (I would be happy to expand on this if you want).
One other thought - though citizenship is often discussed in terms of trying to get it, there is a certain strangeness to a person being claimed by the state by the mechanism of citizenship. Surely this harkens back to being a "subject" of a monarch, which precedes all modern democracies in lineage. The claim of the anarchists that citizenship is a tyranny makes more sense in this light, but the practical fact remains.
We can debate if these are actually benefits. It is true people for example receive welfare but it is also true that people are put into a position of poverty in the first place by the same system which offers welfare to alleviate it. Poverty is a result of the laws, the culture, the society people live in. Welfare is a band aid solution to a deeper problem in my opinion.
Participation in markets doesn't specifically require a nation state. Just look at the blockchain and you can see we don't need a government for that. That is why I never included that. I included the passport because the passport is something only a state can currently give. Markets exist regardless because humans will always form them when the technology exists (which it does).
Participation in the political process is a responsibility not a benefit. What do you get as a reward for being a voter? You must give up time (quite a bit to research how to vote and then at least a day to go vote). I don't see any benefit to those who sacrifice themselves to serve politically. It looks to me like it's a lifestyle filled with immeasurably high costs.
Healthcare I agree with you is an actual benefit but again it's not really a benefit which requires a government to give. I would say most of the benefits you mention are benefits to certain people in certain economic circumstances but once these people become multimillionaires (their circumstances change) then these benefits become only responsibilities.
Protection while abroad, if you mean having good passport and having access to an embassy then maybe I can see that. But I don't think there is as much protection abroad as people seem to think. In fact, if you are abroad you can be spied on legally, by your own government and by foreign governments. Of course if a person is stateless then I can imagine the gloves come off completely so I question what happens to people who renounce their citizenship. What would stop their former government from declaring them foreign and being completely unleashed?
If you're poor, if you're homeless, then I agree to live under a state government which offers healthcare is a blessing. If you're doing well, or if you're rich, it's not so much of a blessing anymore. It means more responsibility for you to pay higher taxes to support others. So ultimately the more successful you become the more responsibilities you inherit in the system.
I already agree with you on that. The idea of selling citizenship never made sense to me for similar reasons.
Should nations get rid of birth right citizenship? As another person mentioned, it's not their fault that they were born into a certain nation. Maybe if we get rid of this idea of birth right citizen or if we give people some way to at age 21 renounce rather than enlist then this would provide more options? I don't really know but I don't see much benefit to renouncing because I don't see that stateless people are living far better lives than people living in states. So from a pure cost vs benefit analysis I would think being stateless costs more which is why people who are billionaires aren't trying to be stateless.
While poverty is a condition which the state contributes toward, by upholding social orders that keep socioeconomic losers as losers, that does not mean that welfare is not a benefit. Welfare is an attempt at balance without massive social change.
I've been listening to a lot of Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson and I think they both have elaborated some important insights. (btw it would be unfair of you to dismiss me based on any prejudice you may have regarding these men, JP especially is polarising I know). One key insight is that of conservatism, that changing society radically is potentially dangerous because we can't predict the results. Thus we have the gravitation towards norms, and the enforcement of these norms, and a resistance to changing them. Haidt's contribution here is that openness to new experiences and other personality traits largely predict political orientation, and so those willing to make changes often make their judgements based on emotion and partial .
5 years ago I would have said that because poverty is a necessary effect of the systems we have in place that we need to remove or radically change them. Stephen Pinker recently came out with a book Enlightenment Now in which he makes the case that things are actually getting better over all. That goes for poverty too. Now I haven't actually read the book, I'm hoping to get it as an audio book, but I've seen data that supports that before, perhaps you have come across some similar information.
It's true that the state maintains poverty even in fundamental ways, such as defining private property. It's not clear that government programmes such as welfare work to alleviate it (there's evidence it makes it worse in some cases) though the case of my own country (Ireland) it's more surely indicated that it does work, at least for most. However as we've seen historically removing private property has not worked in practice. There are some middle ways which are interesting, collective ownership, co-ops, etc. but I have observed that these things are practically limited.
The other claims of benefit I think are easier to see and I don't think you can dismiss them by making the argument that the benefit is relative to income / wealth / class. For example, the lower class person who gets a lot of utility from universal healthcare doesn't get a lot from access to markets, as they work in a factory. The middle class business owner who has private medical insurance gets access to markets, ability to incorporate their company, business tax breaks, etc.
Protection abroad is real. I doesn't mean Navy Seals are going to jump out of the sky to save you from getting mugged, but your country will go as far as trying to bargain with terrorists for your life in the extreme case, or just embassy access which can go a long way, depending on your country.
The other point you make is that the state is not required for much of this. I agree, but that's quite hypothetical. We find ourselves now in a world of states, so it's neither here nor there whether these things can be provided / required without states.
selling citizenship does not make any sense
but one can become a citizen of another
country may be by nationalization
being a citizen of a country should not be something
that should be place at a very high priority
provided that the person agree to abide by the law of that
country and carryout his duty as a citizen
that person should br given the chance
instead of selling your citizenship to another person
You might enjoy this, almost every subjective argument rebutted in some way with case law:
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
This is so interesting! How long did it take to get your citizenship?
Birth. And of course it's not an asset because all being born into a particular country results in, is responsibility that you inherit. It's like being born into a tribe, but citizenship goes a step beyond because certain rules must be followed to keep your freedom or whatever you managed to earn in your life.
To pursue citizenship outside of where you are born you have to go through a long and difficult process. Then you in most cases have to renounce the citizenship from where you were born.
I see! The system is always set up to fail its people. Go figure!
Anyone who says USA isn't good and willing to sell his citizenship, I am very willing to buy if this is lawful.
USA is best country and highly treasured and cherished. I must spend some years of my life in USA its a promise I made to myself and I must live it!
@eurogee of @euronation community
so many people try to ger foreign citizenship nowadays, I mean, in Russia. Most of them try to give a birth to a baby not in Russia in order to get citizenship of another country (USA,Germany).
They are crazy with the idea to be closer to Europe, to the USA.
It's their own choice, but I am far from this desire.
By the way, it can be offtop, but do you know that USSR passport couldn't be counterfeit for a very long time until one detail about it was known...
How do you think what it is? What detail prevented spies to counterfeit soviet passports?;)
you can ignore it, I just thought it can be interesting for you because you're a man with very wide outlook
Some of the smartest people in the history of the world were/are Russian. I'm not surprised by the USSR passport considering the other feats Russians have accomplished. I do know there are many ways to make something hard or impossible to counterfeit using steganographic techniques such as hidden watermarks and more but I do not know the specific Russian way to achieve it. I don't have the details and this is something you would probably know more about.
no)
it's much easier;)
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTH8uDeJCx-bx3Ll_kicJXB1sVi8kgyo0c3reblrafmtXQoJrcS
The soviet clips were made of metal that rusts;)
spies always use metal that doesn't rust;)
i've discovred it recently, and it seems it's interesting and even funny to know:)
You know, this is also very true in general. If you see someone who you never seen before in your neighborhood, with brand new clothes, would you think they are some sort of undercover cop?
Most people don't have brand new anything and if everything looks like they just bought it then it stands out.
yes, right you're..
in such tiny things many main secrets of USSR are hidden.
I firmly expect the aka 'Eurosphere' incl. Russia and USA to get tightly united, will even become EU members.
Thanks, Dana. :) I think It deserves again several replies. Most arguments I stated bellow the original articles of yours, but I'll repeat and put more examples herewith too. :) Sometimes separate sentences would require reaction. My general observation is that nationalist rhetoric and ideology form the bulk of your statements above, which is against any seeking of truth ...
Lets start with the title.: ''Citizenship is a responsibility not an asset''
, this sounds like it is not an asset, it is a liability, or it is not a feature it is bug. https://www.etymonline.com/word/assets - etymology to help grok. :)
I didn't say all that. Nice try. I only say citizenship is a responsibility, not an asset. To build up a country requires sacrifice over multiple generations. The same to build up a community.
To emphasize on sacrifice, responsibility ... is cheap nationalist dangerous ideological discourse. Proven by history and millions of deaths. Sacrifice of what? of $0.5m? of life? of property? of freedom? whose life and property. I object this 'argument' to be included into the discussion.
States exist because of nationalism and Citizen is a nationalist concept. So how can you now claim "dangerous ideology" for a concept which is inherently nationalist?
The fact is, if you're a citizen then whether you accept the ideology or not; you will be paying taxes, you will be sacrificing, you will be responsible, or else the consequences for irresponsibility, for tax evasion, or for unwillingness to sacrifice, are what you have to face.
This is mere costs vs benefits. If you're a citizen it is a lot cheaper for you to be a good citizen than a bad citizen. Cheaper in terms of opportunities you get vs consequences.
The concept of community building is all about adding value. To add value requires some level of sacrifice whether it's taxes, or work, or sharing knowledge, or whatever it is that you bring. So I cannot say even for Steem that it's not about giving back. The difference with Steem is that you get paid for adding value. The government works different in that you pay them, in taxes, in service, and may even lose your life in the process in some instances.
So I don't call it any sort of asset. I don't even say Steem is an asset. An asset is something which rises in value over time. So you put X amount of value in and you get Y amount of value out over time. The value you get out over time is more than you initially put into it and that is an asset.
If we are talking a community or a country, you may put years of your life in and never get the equivalent value out. You may work hard, pay taxes, abide by the laws, do community service, and still end up worse off for it long term. So can we call it an asset? In my opinion we should not. This is why I call it a responsibility, it's something people do because it's expected and because it's necessary.
Chores, duties, stuff people must do to keep things running. This doesn't mean it's fun. This doesn't mean the people doing it will get anything out of it or that what they get out of it will be of equal value to what they put in. We can say this for voting, we can say this for jurty duty, we can say this for taxes, we can say this for community service, or anything else. It's ultimately just shared sacrifice.
Lotsa contradictions I encounter here, but no time to go over them all in detail today. In a nutshell.: [1] states exist because of nationalism? - californian, andalusian, welsh, bavarian? -isms are ideologies, real constructs / nations are not all -istic. Yes, every polity has its ritual and signs but to have systematic exceptionalism is archaic and barbaric. [2] Sacrifical treatment I do not take for sustainability reasons. If you give more than you take you'll get exhausted. Only the most brutal antihumane regimes like the russian communism and its metastases in form of 'peoples republics' do treat citizens as 'debtors' of state or rather as cattle and as ... consumable. [3] There are only a few countries which have fair laws and real rule of law. In 80% of the countries to be good citizen means to be extremely poor and hungry. Cost/benefit analysis ofc, and that's why ppl change countries / migrate. From times immemorial and forever. ASIDE from the fact that good citizens bad citizen you will not find in any legal text, for being extremely radical anti-humanism. [4] Yes, build community FOR pay back. Even parenthood is not form of parasitism but investment in longer run. Ppl join communities not to sacrifice something for the common good, but to put a little and to take out MORE - all for-loss enterprises are doomed to perish, communities building pays off under the Metcalfe's law, which empirically and intuitively has been felt for millennia. That's why entire countries form unions - not just for the linear economy of scale but for the cumulative exponential beneficial effect. [5] I explained many times that it is not asset, constitutionally, worldwide. It gives you certain access vs certain obligations. What I reduction-ad-absurdum-ed was IMAGINE if it is or was an asset, a tradeable item. Well, I think this would be much fairer arrangement. And by citizenship market index it would be instantly visible how much a country worth. [7] 'shared sacrifice' excuse me but is on the very borderline with 'satanic' or 'sadistic' school of geopolitics.
Continue.: '' @karov responded to one of my blog posts with the idea of "why not let people sell their citizenship?". This was in response to my post that you can buy US citizenship as a foreign investor. '' -- It was in response to your post because who is selling citizenship to foreigners with >$0.5m cash in pocket? It is not the US citizens but the US government. My idea was - if the gvt can sell, can it then BUY citizenship, or why at all only the gvt be in this trade? Which is the typical 'reductio ad absurdum' argument. Citizenship is not an asset or property of anyone to sell or buy. Citizenship is a link, connection between gvt and human. A composite of rights and obligations. It is more like a marriage or intuito personae company membership than as owning a house or a car. The reduction ad absurdum part was pointed towards: The gvt estimates that only a person of clean criminal record, etc. who can show $0.5 deserves to be granted with citizenship. How many Americans do not have $0.5m net worth, not to speak $0.5m cash, disposable M0 or M1 aggregate money? Should they be kicked out? :) just joking ... First it is not for sale, and second - not the gvt takes those $0.5, they are not a fee, but a demonstrable wealth. So, even gvts do not 'sell' citizenship.
I'm not going to debate the nuances of the law with you because to be honest I don't know a thing about that. What I do know is being a citizen is a responsibility. So it's not something to buy and sell. If a person wants to be a citizen of country A instead of country B then they must adopt the responsibilities required by country A.
Material wealth isn't the only kind of wealth there is. You're assuming all wealth can be measured in how much money a person has in a bank account? Really?
As posters from other countries have said; there are good reasons to want to be a US citizen vs most other places in the world.
People go after opportunities. Ways to improve their lives and well being. The most categorical way is to abandon their countries and to opt for better ones. NOT for such with heavier duty and less benefits but to join societies where there is more good and less bad for them. But I already stressed on that above. Immaterial wealth does not exist. If you are talking about non-transferable capital ok, but this is another thing. AND you mix up as I pointed out nationalist mythology mantras with strict arguments. People ( you see the most willing to move to USA are not from Norway, France, Switzerland or Japan, but from what the current potus called 'shithole countries') would move to USA in order to have better living than they have in their own countries. That's all. And I bet USA will further improve...
What country offers greater opportunities than the US? I could agree with you if you're coming from most countries to the US. I don't agree when you say people will leave the US to go to some other country where there is little to no opportunity. What country do you imagine people will trade their US Citizenship to move to for opportunity?
Plenty of people move from France, Japan, Norway, to the US. I don't know where you get the idea that immigrants don't come from these places. I admit it's less common but it does happen.
I get this idea straight from the White House and the mouth of the POTUS. :) Which country greater opportunities than the US? - EU. I have one passport but I have full rights in 30+ countries. From the bad side it is softer.: no capital punishment, totally outlawed, no such dragonian criminal law - no 'jackpot' of convictions where for several petty crimes to be locked for dozens of years, no such merciless taxation system, no such social/wealth contrasts ... - enormous variety of culture, cuisine, education, lifestyles ... not so as 30+ countries but rather like 100+ worlds. That's why I strongly recommend USA to go back home and to join EU. Thus it won't even be necessary you to sell your citizenship to have full access here. The wealth comes from the good networking. Double the nodes and cut in half the connection costs and you have 16-fold increase in wealth.
<<For example, a person who built a career in a particular country, has friends in that country, a family in that country, owns property in that country, how much could citizenship be worth to them? >> you do not need to be a citizen of a country in order to visit and stay long periods. The very construct of citizenship=family, carrier, property is so primitive and outdated. In the example of EU/EEA - it is 30+ countries with unified citizenship = opportunity for the holder of any of the members of these unions (without to comprise a nation or supra-state) enjoy full access to any other member-country just like if they are locals. Nowadays it is a norm to have family, friends, career and property in multiple nations. Just like it is a norm in federal states like USA to have these in multiple constituents.
The point is that citizens are stakeholders and care about the future of their country. It's not easy to reach a point where you are so divorced from that to where you can renounce citizenship and go somewhere else. Since few people renounce citizenship why would you believe so many people would sell citizenship?
You regard this from feudal perspective. Bemused what ppl will do without lords. And if they get detached from the land ... If citizenship market exists between citizens ... it will be MASSIVE. Now is massive when it runs through the gvts, imagine if this hurdle removed. Stakeholders? Okay, are you chained by your stakes held in various organizations? The system I glimpsed will bring also enormous pressure onto gvts to improve and stay attractive / on demand / expensive. Passports JUST LIKE company shares.
<<To be a "good citizen" requires effort, work, sacrifice.>> good/bad citizen is stigmata. Totally illegal to even say.
Illegal to say? Well I don't see that law written anywhere.
The fact is, consequences are not evenly distributed and opportunities are not evenly distributed. Since I'm not a stupid person; I can see that good and bad citizens do exist whether you want to accept it or not. The basis behind proving that existence is the uneven distribution of opportunities and consequences.
Show me the evidence you have for why it doesn't exist? Shouldn't all citizens receive the same exact opportunities and consequences? Since they don't; why is that? Why do some receive better treatment and others worse treatment?
Have u ever seen somebody depicted as a 'bad citizen' in official document? This is discrimination. On ideological grounds. Very harsh ones - ''what you do for the state, not what the state does for you''. With such ideologies raging the https://freeprivatecities.com/ will be a market uber-success !! Of course all citizens are equal in terms of legal consequences for their deeds. If some receive better or worse treatment this is called unjustice and inequality. And is against the law, corruption.
<<When someone is a citizen (such as of the United States), they can only know the value of US citizenship in comparison to something else. Most US citizens do not travel so they never learn the value of US citizenship. For example, if you are a US citizen who does travel then you quickly learn that the US passport is one of the best in the world. This means just by being a US citizen you get one of the top passports.>> I'm more pro-american than most Americans I know :) paradoxical, but fact. US citizenship is just a set of specs. It is not one size fits all. As you see there is exodus of richer and inflow of poorer people. Or inflow of 'fugitives' - like new rich from risky places like China. Or inflow of massive amounts of money which is incompatible with citizenship or residence - utilizing USA as highly secretive money hideout. I say that in order to emphasize that it is not consistent construct to mishmash .: citizenship is debt, but it is a juice worth the squeeze because US is the best. We must keep facts and ideologemes separate. They do not mix well.
<<Anarchists will say: >> I can't wrap my head around this ... what mentioning of anarchists has to do with the theme of buy/sell citizenship?
My point is the idea you present only appeals to anarchists. Show me a demographic which would do this in the United States?
I showed you - 85% of the population are not even near enough to sniff $0.5m networth not to mention dry cash... 80% are under $100k even. Add age, lack of education, bad life choices, wrong skin color or linguistic group ...
And why anarchists. It is imagine in a world of busses, I to advocate private cars which the ppl to be able to sell to each other and use individually, and you to say that such an idea appeals only to ... pedestrians.
<<If there is a nation which does offer tax free living, with no required service, and which does have just laws? I would like to learn about such a nation. >> ... okay, take notes.: Monaco, Cayman Islands, few other Carribean nations. :) Yes, the Monaco entry fee is little bit steeper - 7-8 digit $ sum investment but doesn't it worth every penny? ;)
You have to renounce your US Citizenship to take them up on that offer. Those places have some problems too so let's not act like it's paradise there. Dubai if I recall also does not have taxes.
For such places $0.5m is pack of peanuts, not enough but having their passports = visa free visits and long stays in US, too. Talking about the advantages of USA ( I told you I'm more pro-american than most americans I know ... ) .. what about Canada? Worse or better?
Dubai is another ... beer. Absolute monarchy. Standing the foreigners for the money ... I suspect. We talking modern societies not medieval fossils ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth :P