no they are not, this is exactly my point, you dont own your country ... you just have a vote ... which you dont always use , sometimes your vote will win, sometimes not
what separate a citizen from a resident is ... in most place i know .. the right to vote
and an owner does need a vote .. he may have some restrictions imposed by law, or how to use what he owns, but beyond that .. he can do whatever he want with what he owns, not permissions needed
Hypocrisy would be forbidding immigration to others, while expecting other countries to allow it for yourself. I expect no such thing, and indeed most countries don't allow unlimited immigration.
And the US is not the only place where one can pursue happiness.
In a company having the right to vote means you're a shareholder. Citizens are shareholders of their own countries.
Also, people get too fixated on the right to vote. That's not what defines a democracy, it's just a means to an end. A democracy is defined by a set of liberal values and freedoms and the vote is there to prevent those values and freedoms from being taken away.
> he can do whatever he want with what he owns, not permissions needed
Well, big companies have multiple owners, so one owner cannot do what he wants unless he has a majority. Also a company is subject to market forces, customers voting with their wallet.
So really, an owner can only do what he wants for as long as (1) he can afford it and (2) his peers tolerate it.
In a society we are all interconnected. People that fuckup get marginalised.
> In a company having the right to vote means you're a shareholder. Citizens are shareholders of their own countries.
Being a shareholder means you have volunteered part of your personal treasure to be part of an on going enterprise in the hopes of earning more treasure.
In the modern world, native citizens put nothing up for their vote. Taxes are not voluntary, nor are they required for a vote.
> Also, people get too fixated on the right to vote. That's not what defines a democracy,
That is simply, plainly wrong. Words don't change to mean what you want them to mean. The essence of democracy, that which literally defines it, is voting.
>Well, big companies have multiple owners, so one owner cannot do what he wants unless he has a majority. Also a company is subject to market forces, customers voting with their wallet.
So really, an owner can only do what he wants for as long as (1) he can afford it and (2) his peers tolerate it.
> The essence of democracy, that which literally defines it, is voting
No dude, party members in the Eastern Europe's communists countries also voted. Our dictators called our stalinism a democracy.
The essence of democracy is the rule of law and the individual freedoms of the citizens, which makes it possible for citizens to participate, the vote being a means to an end and not being possible without the rule of law and without those freedoms.
And I'm not assuming too much here, but within this context, my opinion is that if you haven't lived under some form of dictatorship, you don't know what you're talking about.
I take your point about the fetishization of voting in the modern West. It is sometimes taken to silly extremes. And I agree that voting is not sufficient for democracy. But I still maintain voting is necessary. Democracy is government of the people.
Late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’
I don't know of any mechanism other than voting for gleaning the popular will.
> my opinion is that if you haven't lived under some form of dictatorship, you don't know what you're talking about.
I cam't agree with that. Your experiences make you special, as do mine me. But if you really believe what you wrote, no further discourse from you can enlighten me or others until we too have lived under despotism.
And if the people vote for strict immigration restrictions, including those based on immigrants' beliefs, that decision should be respected as much as any other, should it not?
Not in America, no. This country was explicitly founded on a fear of majoritarian tyranny eroding what its founders saw as inalienable rights.
The reason why we have a constitution that permanently enshrines things like freedom of speech and religion is exactly because the founders worried that some form of "democratic despotism" would try to vote them away.
All the owners of a company (ie shareholders) have are a vote as well. They might not use it, they might not win.
Few major companies have a singular owner who can act as dictator.
Also, in the USA, idealistically citizens do not require permission to do whatever they want. All rights are given to the states & people; the federal government is specifically given delimited authority that it can manage.
you cannot really compare a citizen to a shareholder
(if you cannot sell it, you dont own it)
1- not all shareholders have votes
2- as a shareholder your vote is proportional to your owner ship
3- you can sell your shares, you cannot sell your rights of citizenship .. to another immigrants for example
they are not the same .. they are just not .. maybe on the surface from far far away they look the same .. to you
maybe as a citizen it feels good to think you own your country, but you dont .. really you dont
if you own your country, this makes you responsible for the actions of your country
say you country goes to war and kill innocent people, are you really responsible ... yes, only in the case a vote was cast and you voted yes on the war
but in general you are not really responsible, because you dont own it, and because you dont own it, you dont control it ..
You're responsible proportional to the amount of influence you could've had. If you were a celebrity of a large nation and this large nation begins an unjust war, if you didn't speak out against it, you are responsible to some degree.
Just like shareholders in companies have the responsibility to vote for proposals that keep the company running.
I disagree - the citizens of a country are its owners.