RE: Why Citizenship and National Sovereignty are Obsolete

[petesisco]

I suppose I could have used less obvious examples. But those (fictitious) cases I used are nevertheless valid. Any parasite who hates other people as a serious hobby can travel with limited restriction as long as his mother was Canadian, British, American, German, etc. And any productive, respected person from 50 other countries can not.

Trump is just a visible example of a Statist who perpetuates the old model of "others" being a threat, in a technical age when we are easily capable of dealing in specifics rather than vague generalities about where people's mothers come from.

Birthplace as a metric of character is absurd.

Comments

[halkirk]

Happy to see you 'now' describe your writing of the racist American male and angelic sounding Female foreigner as fictitious. When you wrote "Again, dozens or even hundreds of people can corroborate the facts relating to both Norman and Khalila." I thought you were telling the truth about actual people. Thanks for the clarification.
While I don't disagree there is much wrong with the world and how it operates, it seems to me that spinning someones ideas about how to deal with what is truly crisis problems with immigration, etc. doesn't come across as too convincing. Given the world as it is, do you think anyone would get very far politically with your line of thinking to address the problems that are happening NOW?
I can only painfully imagine the state of affairs if all government were to shut down and people were "free" to do whatever they please. Do you really think there would be anything close to the property rights, individual rights, etc. that we have today? Do you not think there would be a mad rush for tyrants to build up large armies to rape and pillage whenever and wherever? I'll grant you that some of that already happens now with many governments, but I'm fairly confident it would be significantly worse without the rule of law in its current state. The model you speak of isn't some new age philosophy but rather knowledge gained and acted upon as a result of hard learned lessons over time that has demonstrated how bad things can get when left unchecked aka history. As for your obvious bias against what Trump is saying and your lack of criticism of Clinton, I'm guessing your thoughts are more aligned with the Clinton mindset (if you HAD to choose)....no?
As for the assertion of birthplace being a metric of ones 'character', I had no idea that is how any country or STATE ascribes 'character' and doubt it is the case in actuality or reality if what you mean by 'character' is "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual".

[petesisco]

1. Oh, I don't think any politician would embrace my idea. For one thing, it's an idea that takes power away from politicians.
2. You're right about an overnight transition from nothing but coercive States to zero coercive States - it would no doubt involve a lot of turmoil, some of it violent. The answer is to build non-coercive, voluntary mechanisms and services that operate in parallel, then let them completely supplant the violent political models worldwide.
3. Since you asked, I think H. Clinton should be in prison as a war criminal, whereas Trump hasn't had the opportunity to be one - yet.
4. I voted libertarian once when I was about 20. (I put that down to youthful naivety.) In the nearly 40 years since then I am proud to say I have never voted for any coercer in any political election. Politics (including Democracy) is just power from the barrel of a gun. In the US the Red Team and Blue Team are both loaded with war criminals and corruption. But I know most people would give their personal endorsement to either Hitler or Mao if those were the two names on a ticket. That's how evil gets power - it says it's the lesser of two choices and then people line up to endorse it.