I'm a Citizen of the Internet, Where's My Passport?(thenextweb.com)
thenextweb.com
I'm a Citizen of the Internet, Where's My Passport?
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/03/11/im-a-citizen-of-the-internet-where-do-i-get-my-passport/
13 comments
I had this idea, but even better: make the passport trades temporary, on a monthly basis, and turn it into a financial market.
US/UK switch? Probably basically free for both, if both are seen as equally desirable. But citizens from "less desirable" countries would pay ($30K/yr?) to have to the right to work in the US/UK. And, for example, US/UK doctors would receive money ($30K/yr?) to work in third-world countries. The rates would vary depending on each pair of countries and relative demand.
It seems abhorrent at first to ask already-poorer third-world citizens to pay money, but the $30K/yr would presumably come out of salaries paid from the first world -- so people from third-world countries would only be able to work in the US if they were making excellent money, and therefore contributing greatly to the economy. No money is actually being "taken" from the third-world. And the $30K/yr payment to doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. living abroad would provide a fantastic transfer of skills from the first world to the third world, helping to counteract "brain drain".
I'm not sure any governments would want to sign up for something like this, and it may feel rather questionable morally, but it could solve a lot of problems.
US/UK switch? Probably basically free for both, if both are seen as equally desirable. But citizens from "less desirable" countries would pay ($30K/yr?) to have to the right to work in the US/UK. And, for example, US/UK doctors would receive money ($30K/yr?) to work in third-world countries. The rates would vary depending on each pair of countries and relative demand.
It seems abhorrent at first to ask already-poorer third-world citizens to pay money, but the $30K/yr would presumably come out of salaries paid from the first world -- so people from third-world countries would only be able to work in the US if they were making excellent money, and therefore contributing greatly to the economy. No money is actually being "taken" from the third-world. And the $30K/yr payment to doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. living abroad would provide a fantastic transfer of skills from the first world to the third world, helping to counteract "brain drain".
I'm not sure any governments would want to sign up for something like this, and it may feel rather questionable morally, but it could solve a lot of problems.
[quote]US/UK switch? Probably basically free for both, if both are > seen as equally desirable. But citizens from "less desirable" countries would pay ($30K/yr?) to have to the right to work in the US/UK. And, for example, US/UK doctors would receive money ($30K/yr?) to work in third-world countries. The rates would vary depending on each pair of countries and relative demand.[/quote]
So for the same job one would receive a different salary based on his/her country of origins ? More specifically: people coming from poor countries would receive less money for the same job compared to "natives" of the welcoming country while people from richer countries would receive more money than "natives" of poorer countries they are working in ?
It looks like a tax based on origins and (I am not american) seems to remember it is one of the founding myth of the american independance, am I wrong ?
So for the same job one would receive a different salary based on his/her country of origins ? More specifically: people coming from poor countries would receive less money for the same job compared to "natives" of the welcoming country while people from richer countries would receive more money than "natives" of poorer countries they are working in ?
It looks like a tax based on origins and (I am not american) seems to remember it is one of the founding myth of the american independance, am I wrong ?
Using your example, at 30K/year you'd have alot of US/UK students offering to trade places with citizens of other countries.
And if the poor of one country can be incentivized to switch with the rich of another country, wouldn't that just further stratify wealth?
And if the poor of one country can be incentivized to switch with the rich of another country, wouldn't that just further stratify wealth?
Classical economic theory suggests that the switches would happen only when they were truly advantageous to both parties -- in this case, one would assume that the poor would gain in experience and knowledge, and the rich too. Otherwise neither of them would have made the trade in the first place.
It's certainly debatable, but it would be my hope that it would lead to increases in opportunity for all parties.
But these are exactly the kinds of moral concerns I alluded to...
It's certainly debatable, but it would be my hope that it would lead to increases in opportunity for all parties.
But these are exactly the kinds of moral concerns I alluded to...
Ah I meant stratify in the geographical dimension. In that all the rich people will live in one nation, and all the poor people will live in another nation.
Anyone who is poor in nation A, will trade places with an up and comer in nation B.
Anyone who is poor in nation A, will trade places with an up and comer in nation B.
Hey, you might be onto something here! But I doubt that's going to happen soon, if ever...
Do you think this should be limited to passports, or extended to citizenship as well?
I'm basically just thinking about the right to reside and work. And it would be on a monthly or yearly basis, not a permanent thing. Citizenship is a permanent thing, so it's a different beast entirely.
Of course, if citizenship were an option after n years of residing and working in a country (which is the case in many places), then one would expect the market prices to change considerably...
Of course, if citizenship were an option after n years of residing and working in a country (which is the case in many places), then one would expect the market prices to change considerably...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
It's hardly a new position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_citizen
It isn't hard to do
It's hardly a new position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_citizen
But does that mean we'd need a "World Government" too? That part kind of scares me, although I think something like EU is pretty democratic, although still not perfect, which means that at some point in time, maybe during a crisis, they'd call for "streamlining" the Government, making things more centralized, and therefore the thing I fear most about a World Government.
By no measure is EU "pretty democratic". I never voted for anyone who matters in the EU bureaucracy, nor was I given an opportunity. We have people running the EU like baroness Ashton who has never been elected in any elections, ever in her life, not just for her current position. The democracy deficit is painfully obvious.
A nice yet very naive idea. The passport you hold represents a key to the walls which surrounds your country. Without these walls international trade would flow unhindered - resulting in the devastation of the western economies and our artificial upheld position as the worlds supreme beings.
If you really want this world join ATTACK or a similar organization and try to bring down WTO for starters.
Note: Not arguing one over the other - just stating the obvious
If you really want this world join ATTACK or a similar organization and try to bring down WTO for starters.
Note: Not arguing one over the other - just stating the obvious
I wonder if this article is a really an unconscious railing or secret diatribe against the cost of renewing a UK passport these days :)
* Minimum cost to renew a UK passport in 1997: GBP 18 ($28).
* Minimum cost to renew a UK passport in 2011/2012: GBP 77.50 ($121).
That's 431% in 14 years or 11% per year! This does not include Post Office handling charges.
This is more than twice the highest single data point inflation (even including housing) and almost four times the annual average over that period.
Oh, and if you were tempted to fast track it for the 1-day service renewal, that's GBP 129 ($202).
* Minimum cost to renew a UK passport in 1997: GBP 18 ($28).
* Minimum cost to renew a UK passport in 2011/2012: GBP 77.50 ($121).
That's 431% in 14 years or 11% per year! This does not include Post Office handling charges.
This is more than twice the highest single data point inflation (even including housing) and almost four times the annual average over that period.
Oh, and if you were tempted to fast track it for the 1-day service renewal, that's GBP 129 ($202).
While all that may be true - (and as a Brit living in the US who has to renew their passport shortly thanks for the heads up on pricing) at $121 for 10 years that works out to be $1 / mo. That actually seems very reasonable compared to my cable bill.
For an even more reasonable 50 cents a month, I'll provide the valuable service of warding off cheetah attacks*
(* not valid in vicinity of cheetah)
(* not valid in vicinity of cheetah)
IIRC, passports became "biometric" in the meantime, though—and it's pretty much a global biometric standard too. So there's the administrative cost of all the biometric data and the cost of the RFID chip and all other necessary technology too.
Although I do agree, it's a joke—but still, if you want to travel abroad you need it.
Although I do agree, it's a joke—but still, if you want to travel abroad you need it.
This is interesting. Consumer prices increased 24% from 1998-2009, passport renewal increased 269%. It seems the product has greatly changed and adopted technology and more bureaucracy. It appears the major reasons for £56 price increase were:
* 40% new anti-fraud measures
* 27% update passports, new anti-fraud, interview for 1st timers (2006)
* 12% to deal with 500k backlog in 1999
* 20% because of falling number of passport applicants and to pay for ID cars.
The world has changed a lot over the last 14 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#Fees
The world has changed a lot over the last 14 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#Fees
Not to mention the costs of integrating the UK passport system with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[deleted]
The great thing about the internet is you don't need a passport...
Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't stop thinking about taxes (and its collection) while reading the article.
Taxes are often levied on residence and behavior, rather than citizenship.
> Taxes are often levied on residence and behavior, rather than citizenship.
But not always. The US govt taxes overseas earnings of its citizens and resident aliens. (There's an exemption for the first $95k (plus some deductions) - see http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,... )
But not always. The US govt taxes overseas earnings of its citizens and resident aliens. (There's an exemption for the first $95k (plus some deductions) - see http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,... )
My passport is my GnuPG public key.
Who's going to help negotiate your release from some 3rd world prison on trumped-up charges, and with what leverage? And who's going to fight your extradition to some random country whose laws some judge deems your service to be infringing. Sometimes having a real country behind you can be a good thing.
Well, I don't want to come off as libertarian, but presumably you could buy insurance against this in an environment where there's a bunch of people who need such a service.
There's more such arguments, like suggestions that you need a nation to subsidize your health care or protect you from every day crime, but all of those are reasonably privatize-able as well.
There's more such arguments, like suggestions that you need a nation to subsidize your health care or protect you from every day crime, but all of those are reasonably privatize-able as well.
How is an insurance company going to stop an extradition? Unless it manages to claim sovereign status over some land where you can live and have your business, you're still at the mercy of your generous host country. And if that happens, I think they call it a country.
Insurance Company A has mercenary company B and diplomat C on retainer in case of conflict with foreign nations.
Really, we pay taxes, and taxes cover things like the aforementioned ambassadorial services. It is arguably doable that we could pay some other organization to do the same thing.
Really, we pay taxes, and taxes cover things like the aforementioned ambassadorial services. It is arguably doable that we could pay some other organization to do the same thing.
OK, let me illustrate my point. Let's say you, a US citizen, renounce your citizenship and vow allegiance to this new entity which doesn't hold any land, but with which the US has generously agreed to a permanent residency status for any of its citizens (however unlikely such an occurrence). You run your online business from the US, and a judge in, say, Thailand rules that your product is in violation of their laws incriminating insults to the king. The Thai embassy files for your extradition, as the country has an extradition agreement with the US, and since you are not a US citizen, you are placed in US Immigration & Customs custody until your residency status can be determined. Now, why would the US ICE administrator or Justice Dept. official in charge stick his neck out and prevent your custody from being transferred to Thai authorities? What could your "ambassador" possibly offer as leverage comparable to what his Thai equivalent brings to bear?
Corporates are not bounded by citizenship. Perhaps we should start considering people as corporates rather than corporates as people. As long as you can be economically viable in a new country, just go ahead and settle there.
What do you mean? Corporations can't just start selling stuff either, they have to be registered, comply with the prerequisites, pay taxes, etc. Some countries are very lax, some are more restrictive, but that's true for citizenship too.
If you mean they aren't bound as in, forced to be in just one country, then citizens aren't either: I myself am a citizen of two countries.
If you mean they aren't bound as in, forced to be in just one country, then citizens aren't either: I myself am a citizen of two countries.
Facebook is the defacto. About.me along with its slew of clones are the long tail.
Think about it... certain demographics around the world all recognize the Facebook logo. Certain demographics will recognize the utility of a Facebook profile. Certain demographics will accept your Facebook login to exchange for access.
Month by month that legitimacy will only grow.
Your "hood passes" are different.
Who's the custodian of how long you've been on Reddit? How much karma you've gotten on Hacker News? How much influence you have on Twitter? How many followers you have on Tumblr?
Some roll their own with their own domain name while most others end up using About.me.
oAuth has a lot of your data too, maybe it's a matter of timing before someone takes that, make it into a legit passport service and sell it Google. Or Microsoft.
Think about it... certain demographics around the world all recognize the Facebook logo. Certain demographics will recognize the utility of a Facebook profile. Certain demographics will accept your Facebook login to exchange for access.
Month by month that legitimacy will only grow.
Your "hood passes" are different.
Who's the custodian of how long you've been on Reddit? How much karma you've gotten on Hacker News? How much influence you have on Twitter? How many followers you have on Tumblr?
Some roll their own with their own domain name while most others end up using About.me.
oAuth has a lot of your data too, maybe it's a matter of timing before someone takes that, make it into a legit passport service and sell it Google. Or Microsoft.
oAuth has a lot of your data too
Wait, what? oAuth is just a protocol.
make it into a legit passport service and sell it [to] (..) Microsoft.
Interestingly, it's Microsoft itself who tried to give people online passports: https://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/10-11passp...
Wait, what? oAuth is just a protocol.
make it into a legit passport service and sell it [to] (..) Microsoft.
Interestingly, it's Microsoft itself who tried to give people online passports: https://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/10-11passp...
Bad phrasing. I see oAuth as having access to your data.
The joke I was making is that Microsoft started, kept changing, and ironically may one day just end up buying a startup to make their passport scheme finally useful.
The joke I was making is that Microsoft started, kept changing, and ironically may one day just end up buying a startup to make their passport scheme finally useful.
Oh, OK, I didn't catch it, sorry ;)
Nations and borders exist because different peoples have different values and different collective aspirations.
Even the notion of an 'internet citizen' is not an entirely universal citizenship. How much interaction do people on HN really have with the Chinese internet populace or the Russian internet populace or the Arabic-speaking internet populace? There are entire internet subcultures which do not or hardly intersect.
I'm sure at some point in human history being a 'world citizen' will be possible, but we're not even remotely close to that at this point.
Even the notion of an 'internet citizen' is not an entirely universal citizenship. How much interaction do people on HN really have with the Chinese internet populace or the Russian internet populace or the Arabic-speaking internet populace? There are entire internet subcultures which do not or hardly intersect.
I'm sure at some point in human history being a 'world citizen' will be possible, but we're not even remotely close to that at this point.
In fact, HN consists of Chinese, Russian and Arabic populace along with more traditional US/UK.
Reading comments to any submission I sometimes play "spot the Russian" and more often than not I find one.
HN perhaps have less interaction with Yahoo populace than they have with Russian populace. In internet, you have another axis orthogonal to citizenship - the services you're on.
Reading comments to any submission I sometimes play "spot the Russian" and more often than not I find one.
HN perhaps have less interaction with Yahoo populace than they have with Russian populace. In internet, you have another axis orthogonal to citizenship - the services you're on.
Yes because the internet will defend you, protect your natural resources, provide you with health care, provide you with unemployment insurance, negotiate treaties to your benefit, inspect your food, regulate your drugs, educate your children and pave your roads.
The reason it's so hard to move between countries is standard exploitation. People would exploit the resources(be them natural or otherwise) and move on to the next place if there was nothing stopping them. Maybe you wouldn't. Or maybe you wouldn't notice yourself doing it. But people would. Tourism is really only good for local economies if you leave after a few weeks. Otherwise you're putting to large a burden on the place you're visiting and the payoff of having you come and leave money is no longer there.
People should be able to move to other countries if they want but it should be a serious and large decision. And realistically, you should care about your local government. It's not like democracy doesn't need you just because you have cute ideas about global citizenship.
The reason it's so hard to move between countries is standard exploitation. People would exploit the resources(be them natural or otherwise) and move on to the next place if there was nothing stopping them. Maybe you wouldn't. Or maybe you wouldn't notice yourself doing it. But people would. Tourism is really only good for local economies if you leave after a few weeks. Otherwise you're putting to large a burden on the place you're visiting and the payoff of having you come and leave money is no longer there.
People should be able to move to other countries if they want but it should be a serious and large decision. And realistically, you should care about your local government. It's not like democracy doesn't need you just because you have cute ideas about global citizenship.
While a global citizen passport would be nice, simply making it easier for productive members of society to move around would make a great deal of difference. Imagine if all you had to do to move was to trade your American citizenship with a British person who wanted to move to the States. Wanna move back in 10 years? Trade your UK Passport to an American looking to move to Britain etc...