A pact is formed between as many countries as is possible to recognise a world citizenship. At birth through one's parents completion of form AWC01, or later in life upon renouncing all citizenships and completing form AWC02, a person would gain this world citizenship. This is an exclusive citizenship which cannot be held in conjunction with any other citizenship.

The holder of a world citizenship is able to cross any signatory border with no more hassle than a citizen of that country. In matters of law, they are treated as an equal to a citizen in that country apart from with regard to taxation, national service or other national-interest obligations on a citizen.

Taxes by these persons are paid to the world citizenship revenue board (WCRB), which then provides some services (consular, etc.) but generally outsources all costs via the state bodies of the signatory countries. For example, a world citizen wishing to enrol in a school in a given country, would involve a behind-the-scenes 'at cost' claim being made by that country from the WCRB. Likewise for state healthcare provision, and for a general per-day-of-residence claim against general cost of non-itemisable state provisions such as use of roads or cost of government.

The tax burden need not be any higher than the average of the signatory countries; and there may be some adjustment according to cost of living. There are savings for the host government, in particular not having to issue identity documents, provide pensions, social security, etc. for the person. These are, in a way, immigrants without many of the problems associated with immigration; and hence they may become uncontrolled immigrants.

The benefits of such a scheme are fourfold:

1) This helps to break down the divisive and inequitable concept of nation and citizenship; along with its evil cousin patriotism
2) The free flow of what are likely to be initially middle-class and skilled persons between signatory countries will do wonders for economic agility
3) The world citizen himself gains a freedom not seen in more than a thousand years - the freedom to live and work and travel basically wherever he chooses without having to gain special permissions or visas
4) Protectionist policies and leg-up handouts to help out the citizens of a country do not need to apply or be paid to these people, a cost saving

I truly believe that such a scheme is the true future of international society; in which nations become just areas under a set of given laws and with a given implementation of social provision and support infrastructure, rather than places to which certain people belong and which belong to certain people.

As the scheme grows and becomes rich, it will be able to facilitate proper frameworks for people from poorer regions to move into richer countries, all within strong regulatory and tax structures; and ensuring that funds are available to the country receiving the citizens to pay for the costs associated therein.
-- vincevincevince, Feb 17 2009

World Baby World_20Baby
Partial inspiration [vincevincevince, Feb 17 2009]

How will you deal with half of the third world signing up and many fewer from first world countries? How will you deal with the social upheaval and discrimination?
-- Voice, Feb 17 2009


//half of the third world signing up... social upheaval and discrimination?// If the third world are able to contribute the tax necessary, then good for them. In reality much of the third world pays virtually no tax (due to impossible enforcement or oil money). Having to pay tax, even if they don't go abroad, will be a barrier.

I see the scheme as being mostly of benefit to middle class first-world professionals; the benefits for poorer third-world residents are limited to easier immigration to richer countries, and that should be a right not a benefit in any case. The selfish concept of being from somewhere rich giving you entitlement to benefit from that rich place and become rich, to the exclusion of those who were not as lucky in their birth geography is both ridiculous and rather nasty.
-- vincevincevince, Feb 17 2009


We sort of have this in the EU. Citizens of any EU country are free to travel, live and work in any other EU country. However even among a group of relatively rich nations this causes problems and some countries are putting restrictions on the rights given to members of poorer countries who have recently joined the EU. Yu also get problems where one country has a different system from many others - e.g. healthcare is inexpensive (to the end user) in the UK, which causes resentment from UK taxpayers who think that foreigners are coming here and using it.
-- hippo, Feb 17 2009


// The selfish concept of being from somewhere rich giving you entitlement to benefit from that rich place and become rich, to the exclusion of those who were not as lucky in their birth geography is both ridiculous and rather nasty. //

The concept is indeed rather selfish, but extremely natural. I wouldn't call it ridiculous. A community builds for itself and for its posterity, and children are one's natural heirs. I would say that if you make no distinction between your own progeny and someone from afar you've never seen before and who doesn't speak your language or share your values, that would be pretty amazing and frankly a bit ridiculous.
-- placid_turmoil, Feb 17 2009


//The holder of a world citizenship is able to cross any signatory border with no more hassle than a citizen of that country.//

Going back further than the EU, this is how Europe used to be before the First World War. You could travel across the continent "from Paris to St.Petersburg" without the need of even a passport. Truth may be the first casualty of war but freedom is normally just behind it on the next stretcher.
-- DrBob, Feb 17 2009


This might be contentious (and quite possibly downright nonsense) but isn't this a secular and bureaucratic (rather than religious/familial) version of Historical Semitism*?

*By which I mean the pan European spread of a people who's strong inter-connections and ties were on an international basis.

Europe's medieval Jewish population formed a professional and highly successful cross-boundary network of trade and communication (citation required for this - it may be completely untrue) Their success was probably due to their position (in social network theory) of having lots of distant connections (acting as connections between local clusters of more isolated people) as strong familial ties extended over longer distances. Of course, local opposition to what seemed like unfair advantage, religious differentiation around usury laws, linked to the general rise of nationalism and a general tendency to distrust "Others" led to some of the most vicious and inhuman behaviour ever undertaken.

Similar purges of non-orthodox (in the eyes of the largely Christian (i.e. post-Roman) Authorities) international organisations occurred from time to time - a massive example being The Knights Templar, and to a lesser extent, Masonry in general.

If this persecution was based on economic factors (and I'd tend to think it was, only with the ostensible 'sweetener' of religious 'purity') then it might be a danger to those operating under the scheme outlined here, were it to become successful.

Having said that, it's the dawn of the 21st Century, we have the internet now - and so all that sort of thing could never happen again....could it?

On a less controversial note - people who work for the UN (or are children of people who work for the UN) are issued a UN passport, which works along similar lines to this.
-- zen_tom, Feb 17 2009


Sheesh, if you want to start a rally for this kind of system, I will be in the front line! But would they allow it?? Think, most of the money people earn is from beurocracy! Drug dealers, weapons dealers, law enforcement.. they all feed from conflict and restrictions (I once made good money selling beer in campus.). Unfortunately, that is a dream. "I have a dream..!". "Imagine all the people, living life in peace, wooohooohooo.." "Dream on..!" But maybe that is something for the Ubermenchen.
-- xkuntay, Feb 17 2009


[errr... Hippo] //We sort of have this in the EU// - in some ways you do; but not in the most crucial point - that is your loss of any single national citizenship. A frenchman may work in Germany without difficult; but he is still a frenchman... if he were a World Citizen he would not be a frenchman, just a man, and a man with no greater or lesser right than any other man be in Germany.

[zentom] //isn't this a secular// Correct, it is not a secular idea. Not in the slightest. [Deuteronomy 10:14; Matthew 25:40; and others]
-- vincevincevince, Feb 18 2009


//[DrBob] //We sort of have this in the EU// -//

Not me guv. That was hippo.
-- DrBob, Feb 18 2009


//[Deuteronomy 10:14]//

"Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is."

//Matthew 25:40//

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Erm, not that I see the connection, but if it has been spelled out before (albeit more than a little obtusely judging from the passages to which you refer), doesn't that mean the idea is deletable based on the grounds that it's already widely known to exist?
-- zen_tom, Feb 18 2009


Sorry [zen_tom] ... I think I got sidetracked there. They referred not to the idea but to the 'stepping stones' that led to the idea.
-- vincevincevince, Feb 18 2009



random, halfbakery