If governments’ pay dividend then citizenships will be like stocks and countries will be like businesses. Now, if you make more kids, do you get more stocks? No. To get more stocks, you either need to buy more or perform a certain service that’ll get you more stocks.
The same way, currently, most governments grant citizenship based on two principles. First is based on place of birth. The other is based on parenthood.
Neither aligns humans’ interests to productivity. Many people, for example, deliberately try to bear their child in US to get US citizenship, and immigration officers are trained to kick tourists out simply because the tourists are pregnant. Moving to US before bearing a child is not a productive endeavor. Paying US’ government for citizenship is. Moreover, being a tourist is victimless regardless of pregnancy status.
If citizenship is granted based on parenthood, then parents that make more kids will get more citizenships. This will actually reduce, rather than increase the marginal costs of producing kids. Such is the way most governments are doing it by public funding, etc. Hence, it will encourage reproduction beyond their optimal economic value, especially among those who are not productive economically.
Citizenship as Companies Stocks
If citizenships entitle a person for a redistribution of wealth, or some power like voting, then it has a market value. Naturally, anyone that wants his son to have citizenships or stocks should buy the citizenship first from others.
Those who do not bother making kids, or a couple who make only 1 kid can sell their citizenship at a market price to add their kids’ wealth. Poor people will have a choice to make fewer kids in exchange of higher standard of living. Hence, even the poorest most unproductive people will have decent standard of living through the dividend straight forward welfare and inherited parents’ citizenship, except that they can’t make any kids till they're rich.
By requiring anyone that wants to make more kids to either buy citizenship straight from newly issued citizenship from their governments at market price, or from others, we increase the marginal costs of making kids. Poor people have higher price elasticity in terms of making kids. A slight increase in marginal costs, including opportunity costs, in making kids will motivate them to make much less kids.
Due to this elasticity, poor people tend to prefer more money rather than more kids and rich people tend to prefer more kids rather than more money. If governments are selling licenses to make more kids, for example, then the rich are willing to pay say $10,000 per kid while the poor are not willing to pay $100.
When two people value the same thing, differently, they will both be better of if each one gets what he values more even at the sacrifice of what he values less. So both the rich and the poor will be better of if the poor get more cash and the rich make more kids.
Less Market Distortion
Many rich people complaint that if we just give money away to the poor, then we’ll encourage people to be unproductive. So, they evaporate the wealth redistribution first through public education and various inefficient governments program. At the end, the poor only gets money under the terms that make it difficult for them to get rich. Wealth redistribution becomes so highly inefficient the poor demand more wealth redistribution.
The rich pay a lot, and the poor are still homeless.
Nowadays, the rich do not have to worry. Let everyone use their citizenship dividend in anyway they want in accordance with the market mechanism. If they failed to get rich, they won’t make kids anyway.
Governments can vasectomies anyone making more kids than what they can afford. Such acts are not victimless after all. There are victims when people make more kids than what they can afford, namely the kids that are born into poverty, and tax payers that’ll end up paying the tag.
More Productive People
The sole purpose why we motivate people to perform a certain act is to increase the number of people that perform the act.
We do not need the productive to live more extravagant life. We need them everyone to be like them. Better living standard is just one way. Encouraging them to make more kids will work even better.
We do not need the parasites to suffer. We just need them to make fewer kids. It’ll be far more humane and motivational if economic productivity is linked to gene pool survival rather than luxury. After all, the true benefits of capitalism do not come from the fact that those making better products or services live more luxuriously. The main benefits come from the fact that such people have the intensive and capability to make more such products and services. At the end, the best products and services proliferates the market while inferior products are driven out.
That’s why we have better and better products.
The same way, rewarding productive people by allowing them to make more kids will make the world full with better and better productive people.
Some of you will say that the rich make fewer kids because they do not want to make kids. Well, check out http://GenePoolSurvivalGuide.com.
There are many rules that prevent rich individuals from making many kids. Relaxing these rules will go along way in giving the poor and middle class the bargaining position to demand more money from the rich, which is what the liberals are doing.
Many people get rich because they have rare talents. When rich people make more kids and the poor make less the rare talents will no longer be rare. The abundance talents, like menial works, will be rarer. The market values the rare. Hence, in the future generation, there will be less wealth disparity.
This is just common sense. If the price of corn drops below the production costs, the natural thinking is to stop producing corns.
Yet, our economic systems encourage production of unproductive people while reducing the reproduction of productive people through various laws against consensual sex and welfare programs. If the rich make more kids, they will split their inheritance to more kids. Hence, each kid gets less. That way, in the future, future generation will have more equal starting condition.
More Choices and Chance for the Poor
Say, for example, we incorrectly deem a person as inferior and prevent that person from breeding. Say that person disagrees and wants to breed anyway. That’s easy. Such person can simply proof their worthiness by serving the market, rather than serving the enemies. After that they can make many many kids. In worst cases they’ll live higher standard of living.
Currently, many poor people all over the world live with little chance to build empire and get rich. Large amount of money is spent for them, or at least as a pretext. Yet all those money just evaporate because governments touch it.
Imagine if you’re a poor kid. You can’t just get governments’ grant to start a business. No. Governments grant come in the form of public school. So you go to public school. Then, you learn garbage after garbage in public schools. All those are just meant to slow you down so you suffer. You can choose to learn faster but the system is designed so everyone moves at the same speed. Then you graduate. You can pick occupation with low supply and high demand. Governments will simply allow immigrants to come for such occupation. You can be thrifty, but governments will simply punish thrifts by cheap housing projects.
You can choose to make fewer kids, but with citizenship coming free, those who make fewer kids receive less governments’ money for his household. Governments simply spend more money to pay for kids’ school. So you get less governments money for making less kids.
You can be entrepreneurs, like I am, but then governments institute minimum wage and many job regulation that’s effectively implicit wealth redistribution from entrepreneurs to workers. Imagine every citizen, jobless or with job, rich, and poor, get the same amount of cash. Then you’ll pay fewer penalties for being productive.
When you’re in school, you can learn faster. That’s money and time saving. All the money governments would otherwise spend for a long schooling will go to you. So, you get your degree earlier, younger, and richer. You can pick courses that have low supply and high demand. That means higher market value and higher salary.
You can leave in your parents’ house. So you’re not penalized for not being thrifty. You can postpone making kids till you’re richer. That means you don’t lost opportunity to get governments grants, because you get the same amount of money anyway whether you make kids or not. That’ll make it much easier for you to be a billionaire.
Now, after you become a billionaire, go ahead make thousands of kids, just pay the full fair price for it.
All those seem to be a good deal for us, the financially responsible that want to reach faster financial freedom. Is this politically viable? What about the stupid lazy un-ambitious people?
Ah, they can get high for the whole of their life. Sure they don’t make kids, but they live a good live don’t they?
So yes, it is politically viable. In democratic countries, whether people vote with ballots, guns, or long bows, we need only roughly 50% vote.
Now, let’s take a look at our liberal comrades.
About 20% of them are gay and lesbians. Will they be happy if they’ll get cash but make less kids? I bet they do.
A large percentage of them support legalization of marijuana. Will they be happy if they can just get high for the whole of their life without even having to take care of kids? You bet they do.
Virtually all of them are pro-choice. What choice? Choices to kick themselves out from the gene pool. Will they be happy to know that they’ll get paid for making fewer kids and those who make more has to pay? Of course they do. They’re not in business of making kids anyway.
When sex is free, women prefer the rich. Does the liberal mind? Not at all. They’re pro free sex.
What about the religious fascist right wings? About half of them hate market distortion. This will create less market distortion. They also hate welfare programs. Well, if the poor make fewer kids, there will be less welfare.
Many of them are rich and pro-life. These people want to breed. Now they can make thousands of kids. They want parents to be responsible for their kids. Under our system, parents are financially responsible for their own kids fully.
Many of the religious fascist opposes free sex. Why? Because they’re unsexy. They’re concern that they’re not attractive enough to attract high quality (or quantity mates).
However, inter society competition means that any males in rich countries can simply attract females in poorer countries. Also, making countries rich mean there are more rich males for females to choose from.
The only people who would oppose it are corrupt politicians. But they are minority. Most of them can switch job to businessmen and make even more money.
With all these benefits, do you think you can get 50% vote? Of course you can. If you cannot, make the deal sweeter for those who are easy to appease, till you get 50%.