The juridical definition of the right of citizenship is the pillar of the “coexistencialism”. It should be compared to the Amendment Act which defined the regulatory environment of the private company. It should assure that the community which belongs to its citizen and not to the government of the community.
The most critical issue is the right to extend the community to immigrant. The problem had already been considered in the amendment act which defined the regulatory environment of private company. The management has the possibility to increase the quantity of cash in the enterprise by selling shares of the company on the stock market. This has the disadvantage to reduce the ownership right of stocks owner so before increasing the capital, the board of director issue warrant (stock option) and distribute them to the stock holder so as stock holder have the priority to answer to the increase of capital of the company. The stock holder can buy the new shares with the warrant and his percentage of ownership in the company will not change or on the opposite, he can sell the warrant on the market of warrant.
On a similar manner, if a government decides to increase the number of member in the community, the right might be distributed to the existing member who might have the right to select new members (with a legal priority to their children).
Another critical issue is the immigration from one community to another community. It is similar to the practice of arbitrage in the finance sector. The main difference with the stock market is that an individual can have only one right of citizenship (at his majority or after paying his first taxes). But, a right of communities might have a different quotation on the market. A new community with debt will have a right of citizenship cheaper to the r4ight of citizenship of an old community. If a citizen wants to migrate from a community with an expensive right of citizenship to a community with a cheap right of citizenship. The difference between the two juridical rights should be kept in a reserve so as to make the reverse immigration cheaper if the member want to come back to the previous community. The difference of value kept in reserve could also benefit to children if the children want to move back to the previous community.
Another point is the possibility of an individual to belong to several communities. Let suppose that a citizen want to belong at 50 % to a community (A) and 50 % to another community (B). The advantage for this citizen will be the reduced the risk. A community may enter in a process of decadence. So, a citizen who also belong to another community have the possibility to move more easily in the other community. His children has the possibility to chose the best of the two communities. He will have to share his tax with a coefficient between both communities. He has an access to the job offering and the product availability of both communities.
One restriction might be in the case of a job restriction in one community. If a community puts a restriction on the number of working hours per individual, let suppose that an individual is citizen at 50 % and the number of working hours is restricted to 40 hours per week in the community (A), this individual will have a restriction of working time at 50 % * 40 hours = 20 hours per week in (A). He might work 20 hours more in a company of the community (B) to have a full working week.
The fractional membership might be automatically in the case of children whom parents belong to separate community. In this case, children will inherit from a fractional membership in each of the community.
Author: Hector Archytas