Einstein might be good at physics, but he is the last person you would ask on ecology.

Einstein was no expert on ecology, but he was well-informed about general matters. Trump is profoundly ignorant when it comes to basic knowledge you’d expect the average 12-year old to know. Like, who doesn’t know what health insurance is?

That’s fair enough. But Trump’s Project 2025 buddies have the intention to undermine Europe. Unfortunately, when America sneezes, everyone catches the cold.

Yeah, they’ve been at it even today, with JD Vance cheerleading for Orbán Viktor.

If Trump and Musk are stupid, they would be poor

This type of thinking is known as the just-world fallacy. It’s very tempting, because people prefer to believe that things happen “for a reason” and not just randomly. Yet there is no basis in reality for this type of thinking. Trump is stupid, and many of his comments can’t be explained by mere showmanship and playing to his base. The only reasonable explanation for forest raking, or negative GDP, or look, having nuclear etc. etc. is that he is a clueless idiot, and he is.

Musk is evil, and certainly no genius, but also not stupid. He has an undergraduate degree in physics, whereas Trump merely has an MBA of negligible academic standard, which certifies basic literacy at best.

The existence of markets naturally leads to an upward flow of capital from the have-nots to the haves. One of the interesting things researchers have found is that simulations with identical agents (i.e. all equally smart) and simple market mechanics lead to the emergence of extreme inequality. You can find the details in the economic literature if you’re interested.

Plenty of famous intergenerational wealthy families eventually lose their status because their descendants squander the fortunes handed to them.

As it happens, Trump did squander his inheritance, but managed to claw back his fortune, first by money laundering for Russian mobsters, then by using his political office for personal gain. Fake it until you make it very much applies here.

You may not be politically active, but they know already that you’re possibly anti-Trump because they took your social security details and other public records, and fed it into their surveillance system.

Well, call me naïve, but they are pretty cautious around this kind of stuff in Germany, I doubt the US government has access to these kinds of records.

Putin wasn’t the only KGB colonel before he became the president of Russia. He had peers and were given equal footing as him. But he had proven to be more cunning and ruthless than them so he gained power.

Putin isn’t in the category I mentioned. Even so, Putin rapidly rose up the political ranks and in the chaos of the later Yeltsin presidency ended up prime minister largely by chance.

Those low level conning salesmen you mentioned, they probably weren’t savvy enough.

The numbers don’t add up. Suppose there are a million savvy conmen. How can they all become major players on the international business and political scene? There just aren’t enough of those positions.

However, if they had been as savvy as the most successful con salesman, Elon Musk, then their fates would have been different otherwise.

Elon Musk started with a heap of money (as did Trump), in an oligarchic system heavily favouring those with money.

And well, who lived until the ripe old age of 70, while the other was murdered in cold blood with an icepick?

Not Lenin, who died of an unknown illness. I think you mean Trotsky.

Never underestimate the opposition.

My opposition, personally? That would be practically all politicians, ideologically, to some degree or other. I am not a member of any political organization.

One should also not overestimate them.

On the one hand, I think it is true that a certain kind of skill is required to read and manipulate people - the same kind of skill a conman or used car salesman needs to do their work, and that kind of skill obviously doesn’t need knowledge of quantum physics or even a rudimentary understanding of how the world in general works.

On the other hand, one shouldn’t give people like Trump, Berlusconi and Idi Amin too much credit. They ended up where they did largely due to historical happenstance, and millions of other conmen and used car salespeople stayed small-time.

Perhaps this will backfire and lead to a collapse of the vote for the right-wing parties, as those who are already comfortable with Nazism are cutting out the middle man and voting for the SD directly

What we’ve seen elsewhere in Europe is that the main effect is the collapse of the “left-wing” parties, as racist “left-wing” voters, who previously were somewhat ashamed of their racist views and voted more according to economic policies, switch to the normalized racist parties.

Is that why Euro was created?

Part of the reason was economic: reducing friction in transactions (especially business ones, tourists less so) and creating a currency with a larger economic base and hence greater stability. Part of the reason was ideological: foster international cooperation and interdependence. It was this alliance between conservatives and progressives that led to greater European integration until progress stalled in the early 2000s as both groups lost ground to reactionary movements.

To answer your question: it was a hassle, we had a lot of loose change from various countries lying around the house.

Must or are?

Must. I know from practical experience reality and legal principle are not always in agreement. The point, however, is that it’s possible.

The abolition of individual national citizenship was, of course, always the endgame of European federalists. It’s why European citizenship exists as a concept.

And yet from a practical standpoint it was not.

Yes, I am aware that the concept of equal rights is not a popular one. I am speaking only about the administrative and legal route to effect such a concept, not about popularizing it among the lumpen proletariat, for which I am, admittedly, quite unsuitable.

I did and that’s what I found.

Even Wikipedia’s article on the history of citizenship, which (unsurprisingly) takes a much more nuanced view than I do and discusses the (tenuous) link between the polis and modern citizenship at length, does not come within light years of suggesting it is “generally accepted” that it “has origins in ancient Greece.” The ruling caste of the polis has much stronger parallels with the Kshatriyas than with modern citizenship.

I never said it was, German citizens get access to the benefit without the residency requirement.

That’s illegal by EU law. German citizens who move from abroad to Germany must be treated the same way as other EU citizens when it comes to social security.

No, clearly it wasn’t, it took a world war to abolish them.

It would have been trivial to abolish them, from a legal and administrative perspective.

I did, it’s generally accepted to have it’s (sic) origins in ancient Greece.

That’s incorrect on both counts. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it, you are free to read about it yourself.

As far as I know in Germany at least you need 5 years residence before fully qualifying for welfare if you’re not a German citizen.

A residency requirement is not a citizenship requirement. A practical example, of some relevance to my personal situation. In the Netherlands, part of the retirement system is a basic income for the elderly. The requirement for receiving this basic income is having been a resident as an adult. So a Dutch citizen who lived part of their adult life outside of the Netherlands and moves back when retiring will only receive some part of the basic income. However, a Belgian citizen (for example) who spent their adult life in the Netherlands will receive the full amount.

Anyway, the only point I wanted to make is that it is possible for EU citizenship to entirely replace national citizenship - as it already does to a large degree. And if that can be done for a continent, it can be done globally.

You just state stuff as if it’s true and must be accepted. This is just an opinion. Presumably if it were both desirable and trivial it would already be the case, no?

What an odd argument. Was it not desirable and trivial to abolish antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany?

You can probably trace citizenship back to the ancient Greeks

Instead of guessing what origin citizenship might have, why not simply look up its actual history? I can sympathize with the plight of someone who has been inundated with a bukkake of nationalist propaganda throughout their lifetime, so let me give the synopsis. Citizenship gradually emerged in the modern period in Europe and during that time replaced the previous system, which included four castes (estates): the nobility, the clergy, the burghers (from which the word “citizen” derives - citizen, city, get it?) and the peasants/serfs. Some remnants of these castes remain, but for the most part the modern citizen grew from what used to be the burgher class. Indeed, in many proto-democracies, voting rights were initially restricted to the landowning class (i.e. burghers), while peasants remained formally discriminated against. The distinction, at least formally and legally, faded away roughly around the time of WW1 (around which time many European governments also abolished the nobility, or reduced them to ceremonial roles only), and from this point we can say there is something resembling modern citizenship, and a system with just two castes: citizens and non-citizens. (Next step: a system with just one caste: people.)

This specific example was chosen by you, presumably because it was an example of antisemitism. I was thinking more like Ug and his gang in the stone age, but it doesn’t really matter. Tribes\social groupings have existed as far back as we have history, who, how and when people are excluded is varied and nuanced but not everything is a racist or bigoted action.

Yes, tribalism is as old as mankind. Yet, while you can seemingly recognize there is something wrong with Ug and his gang being bigoted against the next tribe, the nobility and clergy being bigoted against the peasantry, and Adolf and his gang being bigoted against Jews, you can’t quite seem to grasp how citizenship-based discrimination is equally problematic and equally rooted in bigotry.

Some day, even someone as enlightened as myself (by today’s rather unimpressive standards) will likely be viewed as backward and narrow-minded. Will we live to see it? Unlikely. The brown winds are gathering; fascism is now the most popular ideology in the West by far, and the last time this was the case things did not end well. Even so, I have some optimism that the aftermath of WW3 will induce some self-reflection on the side of humanity, and a reassessment of citizenship as a concept.

The social democrats were leading a coalition in the previous government. Their leader called an early election in the hopes of capitalizing on the Greenland issue. They perhaps did not perform as well in the recent election as they hoped, but they are poised to lead the next coalition government nonetheless.

Okay, but it’s Denmark, one of the most efficiently run countries in the world.

In fact, the top rankings of global economies by living standards are completely dominated by multi-party democracies, while two-party semi-democracies and dictatorships find it much more difficult to pass effective legislation.

Non-citizens can be expelled Non-citizens don’t have the right to vote in national elections Non-citizens don’t always have access to welfare

EU citizens have the same rights to welfare as citizens do in EU countries. They also have partial voting rights. EU citizens can be expelled only under exceptional circumstances.

It would be trivial - and desirable - to eliminate these restrictions.

No, I didn’t say anything about medieval French citizens.

So, of which nation state was said peasant a “citizen”?

Why are we bringing bigotry and anti-Semitism into it?

Because, in this specific example, antisemitism was the reason immigration laws were created in the first place. In other cases, other types of bigotry and xenophobia might have played a role.

So it hasn’t been gotten rid of in any meaningful way

You don’t have to take my word for it, you can just look up in which ways citizenship still matters. This might be an instructive exercise.

You’re right, citizenship has been around for thousands of years.

Is your claim really that a medieval French peasant living in the countryside near Paris (and thus a subject of the King of France) was a “French citizen”? Again, citizenship associated with nation states could not exist, because nation states didn’t!

Again you appear to be confusing immigration policy with citizenship.

I am not “confusing” anything. However, immigration laws are obviously one of the main vehicles of citizenship-based discrimination.

Tell me this, at what time in history were individuals free to join a social grouping and benefit from the shared collective without the assent of the group?

Well, in the UK prior to 1905. Of course there were informal ways in which “groups” of various kinds would not “assent.” The antisemitism of those days became the driving force to formalize the bigotry that until then had only been informally expressed.

Maybe, maybe not, none of us can predict the future.

That is true. However, the overall trend across history, with some interruptions, has been one of decreasing bigotry and narrow-mindedness. With this in mind, it is plausible that insidious discrimination based on citizenship will one day not be as accepted as it is today.

So it’s not actually gotten rid of it any way?

It has, in fact, gotten rid of it in most ways (within the EU).

I’m not sure you’re correct about citizenship as we know it only existing for around a century, but maybe our ideas about it are different. Certainly it’s changed, most things do, but it’s always been about the conference of certain rights and responsibilities on individuals.

My advice to you would be to investigate to what extent you may be incorrect in this matter. For example, did you know that the UK introduced its first limitations to migration (meaning: completely open borders beforehand) in 1905 (bonus points if you can guess which ethnic group the restrictions were primarily targeted at)? Or that, prior to WW1, Europeans could freely travel across borders without border checks or identity documents, which originally were carried only by diplomats, envoys and the like?

Of course, it is true that citizenship did not come out of the blue. Other kinds of caste systems preceded and inspired it. But nationalism itself emerged only in the 19th Century - how could there have been nationalist-based restrictions before the concept even existed? To be sure, there were campaigns of genocide, pogroms and discrimination - but they were often based on informal cultural, tribal, feudal and religious ties, not formal national citizenship.

Do I? I’d imagine a great many modern things would sound foolish to a 1400s monarch. We are, however, living in the present.

Yes, I am aware I am quite far ahead of the primitive mindset of today’s plebeians.

Nur 12 Parteien (+Faröer/Grönland), das sind Anfängerzahlen.

In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.

Yes, and there will come a day when governments attempting to reintroduce citizenship laws will be viewed in a similar way.

Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.

In fact, citizenship as we know it today has only been around for a little over a century. Moreover, we already have a template for how to get rid of it: within the EU, governments must grant equal rights to each EU citizen with only a few exceptions.

Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.

Then you now understand how foolish you would have sounded to the ears of Ferdinand and Isabella if you had dared to suggest Jews and Muslims should have equal rights to Gentiles.

Aw shucks, you’re not quite there yet. Let me spell it out: for someone who is not an extreme ultranationalist, contributing to public services for the common good is as natural (in fact, quite a bit more so) as contributing to those services arbitrarily restricted to citizens.

You’re almost starting to get it.

Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.

Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away. There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia, and in the interbellum period several European governments opted to take away the rights of those citizens viewed as a threat to public order. Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.

Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.

Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all. Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.

Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a Swede?