Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you work for a company and you are a poor performer, you stand a good chance of getting fired or laid off at some point. What if a country did the same?
Then it would be a fascist hellhole of a country, wouldn't it? In fact, it's a fair bet that a good percentage of the best and brightest would be using their skills and talents to get the eff out. Which kinda counteracts your entire "let's improve the average stock" plan in the first place.
Providing safety for the citizenry - the entire citizenry - is pretty much the yardstick for what constitutes a country.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 03-12-2016 at 07:58 PM..
If you work for a company and you are a poor performer, you stand a good chance of getting fired or laid off at some point. What if a country did the same? If you, by the age of 30, hadn't worked or accomplished anything, you get deported. If you got convicted of a felony, you get deported.
Over time, the country's composition would change so that only productive citizens would remain. There would be no need for prisons and government spending would be vastly reduced with this high achieving population. The only question is where to send the under-performers.
Like what happen in Great Britain when they did that to Australia and America?
Over time, the country's composition would change so that only productive citizens would remain. There would be no need for prisons and government spending would be vastly reduced with this high achieving population.
If everyone is a "high achiever", then there are no high achievers. One's level of success is based upon how well one succeeds in relation to everyone else. That is a trait shared in all free nations. There is no wealthy without the poor.
What you're describing is the "Progressive" movement. If you look at the movement historically, the "Progression" was in fact that of weeding out the non-contributors of society. Their approach was by banning immigration, implementing/promoting abortion clinics in poor and minority neighborhoods, as well as forced sterilization/population control. Most progressives today will agree that overpopulation and population control are important topics to be addressed. Many believe we should have a cap or 1 or 2 kids per family. When I mention that this would target the poor, minority and immigrant communities at a disproportionate rate vs Whites, they generally shrug and admit it's a dirty piece of business, but still must be addressed.
Are you kidding me? You are really twisting things here. Eliminating all but those who are productive is a pro business, conservative mantra. Conservatives say that only those who have skin in the game should have voting rights. This just takes it to a new level.
What you (OP) propose is what Europe did, especially in the 19th century. Their poor performers are the ancestors of most of us here today. Collectively, they built the most successful nation in history. The reason behind poor performance is usually lack of opportunity. Maybe we ought to focus on that.
A company or private club that practiced the OP's suggestion would be functionally similar to a country of the same size, assuming that the burden of taxes, regulations, and mandates was light. In such a company or private club, the worst performers are kicked out, which has the same effect as kicking them out of the country - as far as their members/employees/owners are concerned they're out, they're not their problem, and they don't have much to do with them. How is that benefit for the members/employees/owners of that club/company different from the benefit for the citizens of the OP's country?
The club or company obviously has the advantage of being vastly less questionable morally and ethically as well as the practical benefit of not having to go to the effort of acquiring and clearing/policing territory as you would if you had a whole country that was run like that. Now, in the company/club's case the unproductive are still in the same country as the company/club is, which under our system would mean they'd have to pay to support them via a social safety net; however, in principle a country doesn't have to have a social safety net, or at least not a universal one. Some sort of opt-out could be provided (pay nothing in, get nothing out).
Whether all this would be a good idea is of course is another question, but the point is that the functional equivalent of the OP's proposal could be created and without forming a separate country.
If a separate country must be created, then in principle a sovereign state could be created consisting of a tract of unoccupied land large enough to host a city that was bought for that very purpose. Once a city is built there, the OP's proposal could then be implemented in that city-state; the entire starting population would be people that moved there and agreed to the conditions of citizenship, so the problems of running a country along those lines would be minimized. In particular, the under-performers could rather easily be sent back to where they originally came from.
This is not too different from how Singapore and Hong Kong were founded; they were sparsely-populated tracts the British acquired then used to build two cities from the ground up. The "charter cities" concept from the late 2000s is also a model that could be used. You might also think of it as a tract of private property that constitutes a sovereign state; that's not nearly as much of a stretch as you might think, since that's basically what the Vatican City is right now.
Honestly, though, the entire idea of the OP strikes me as not being worth anywhere near the effort that would be required to implement it. Those energies would find much more productive use elsewhere when it comes to improving our lives. The OP obviously possess some amount of ability to think outside the box, so he/she should carry on thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
What you (OP) propose is what Europe did, especially in the 19th century. Their poor performers are the ancestors of most of us here today. Collectively, they built the most successful nation in history. The reason behind poor performance is usually lack of opportunity. Maybe we ought to focus on that.
Indeed. In any environment there are some that simply will perform better than others could hope to, but we're kidding ourselves if we think that even the highest performers in our context are performing at even a small fraction of what they're capable of in an optimal context.
If you work for a company and you are a poor performer, you stand a good chance of getting fired or laid off at some point. What if a country did the same? If you, by the age of 30, hadn't worked or accomplished anything, you get deported. If you got convicted of a felony, you get deported.
Over time, the country's composition would change so that only productive citizens would remain. There would be no need for prisons and government spending would be vastly reduced with this high achieving population. The only question is where to send the under-performers.
Productive? That would mean the whole US Senate would have to leave.
If you work for a company and you are a poor performer, you stand a good chance of getting fired or laid off at some point. What if a country did the same? If you, by the age of 30, hadn't worked or accomplished anything, you get deported. If you got convicted of a felony, you get deported.
Not a bad idea.
However, the minimum age for president is 35 years according to the Constitution, so you might want to adjust the age to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightleavenyc
Over time, the country's composition would change so that only productive citizens would remain. There would be no need for prisons and government spending would be vastly reduced with this high achieving population. The only question is where to send the under-performers.
Look how much wealthier everyone would be.
You can send them anywhere. Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iraq, or just about anywhere else.
Give them $10, a brown bag lunch, a parachute.
Tell them "phasers on stun, good luck, Kirk out."
And then boot them out the back of a C-130.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC
Who would be the judge and jury?
A jury of peers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC
To where would they be deported?
Who cares so long as they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC
And why is 30 the magic number?
It should be 35.
I think it would be a good idea to make the "Takers" justify their existence and defend their lives -- why they should get to continue taking without giving anything back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
