What if borders became irrelevant, and people could live and work wherever they wanted?

Subscription-based citizenship for a borderless world

Imagine being forced to use an operating system you hate simply because of where you live. Strange, isn’t it?

The frustration of fighting against an interface that doesn’t match how you think, the daily friction of working within a system that feels alien to your natural way of being. But this is precisely how modern citizenship works.

Every day, millions of people find themselves governed by policies that fundamentally oppose their values and way of life, simply because of where they live. These aren’t just abstract rules—they’re the invisible walls that shape our daily existence, influence our children’s futures, and determine our access to basic human needs. 

A progressive citizen in a conservative region must live under local rules they disagree with, while simultaneously enduring national policies they oppose when a different party holds power. They wake up each morning knowing their children will be educated in ways that conflict with their deepest values. The reverse is equally true for conservatives in progressive areas, who watch their traditions and beliefs slowly erode under policies they never chose. 

Citizens are trapped in these contradictory governance systems at multiple levels—local, regional, and national—as incompatible with their beliefs as forcing a Mac user to navigate Windows 95. But unlike software, we can’t simply close the program and open another. Our lives, our families, our futures are bound by these invisible chains. 

This geographical lottery of governance raises a provocative question: In an era where we can customize everything from our entertainment to our food delivery, why are we still bound by citizenship models designed for an age before air travel and instant communication?

Why do we accept a system that treats human potential as a accident of birth? 

Consider how archaic our current system appears when viewed through a contemporary lens. We accept as normal that a programmer in San Francisco must live under the same federal policies as a farmer in rural Kansas, despite their fundamentally different needs and daily realities.

Their expectations of government services, their requirements for infrastructure, their economic priorities—all vastly different, but forced into the same rigid framework. We don’t force everyone to use the same phone or subscribe to the same streaming service—why do we accept this one-size-fits-all approach to governance? 

Here’s a radical proposition: Citizenship as a Service (CaaS).
Imagine citizenship functioning like your digital subscriptions, but instead of choosing between Netflix and Disney+, you’re selecting governance models that align with your values and needs. These wouldn’t just be administrative services—they would be the frameworks that shape how your children learn, how your community grows, how your dreams can be realised. 

Think about how we handle other essential services in the digital age. When your internet provider offers poor service, you can switch providers. When an app doesn’t meet your needs, you can uninstall it. Yet when your government fails to represent your interests or provide basic services, your main recourse is to physically relocate your entire life—assuming another government will even accept you.

Families are torn apart, communities disrupted, all because of lines drawn on maps centuries ago. 

The irony deepens when we consider how we already live in an increasingly borderless world—for everything except human beings.

Capital flows freely across borders in microseconds. Digital services operate globally without friction. Even corporate entities can shop for favorable jurisdictions through tax residency choices. Meanwhile, humans—with all their hopes, dreams, and potential—remain bound by arbitrary lines drawn on maps centuries ago, often by colonial powers who had never even visited the regions they were dividing. 

A subscription-based citizenship model could transform this outdated system.

Rather than paying taxes to a geographically bound nation-state, individuals would subscribe to service providers aligned with their values and needs. Think about the absurdity of our current system replaced by something as intuitive as choosing a mobile phone plan—but for governance. Imagine the freedom of knowing your children could access the education that best suits their needs, regardless of where you live. 

Consider the human implications: Refugees wouldn’t face life-threatening bureaucratic hurdles while seeking safety from persecution and war. Parents wouldn’t have to choose between their careers and keeping their families together.

The artificial scarcity of “good passports” would disappear like phone booths in the digital era. 

Implementation would require unprecedented cooperation, but haven’t we achieved similarly radical transformations before?

Just decades ago, the idea of carrying a powerful computer in your pocket, instantly communicating with anyone globally, or running a business entirely through digital platforms seemed equally far-fetched. The transition from feudal systems to nation-states once seemed impossible too. Yet here we are, still evolving, still transforming. 

Critics might argue that such a system could amplify inequality or erode cultural identity. But aren’t these problems already acute in our current system? Don’t we already live in a world where wealth buys better citizenship options and where cultures struggle to maintain their identity against homogenizing forces? Perhaps it’s time to imagine solutions that acknowledge these realities rather than pretending they don’t exist. 

This vision isn’t about erasing differences or creating a one-world government. Instead, it’s about acknowledging that our current approach to citizenship is as outdated as landline phones in a smartphone world. It’s about recognising that human potential shouldn’t be limited by the accident of birth. 

Radical ideas like Citizenship as a Service are more than intellectual exercises—they are invitations to explore the liminal spaces between our current reality and possible futures. Our existing systems, reliant on the pursuit of power at all costs, are failing to deliver meaningful change. 

This vacuum drives people to embrace extreme leaders, even those with questionable credentials, in a desperate bid for transformation. Yet perhaps the most radical act is not in proposing complete solutions, but in creating spaces where we can collectively reimagine fundamental assumptions about how we organize society. 

The path forward emerges not through wholesale revolution or perfectly formed proposals, but through thoughtful evolution in these liminal spaces—where current limitations meet future possibilities. Here, in the tension between what is and what could be, we find opportunities to envision governance systems that prioritize human wellbeing over power, and innovation over inertia. 

As we face unprecedented global challenges, our greatest opportunity lies in these spaces between—where we can dare to imagine radically different futures while remaining grounded in practical reality. These liminal spaces are where humans naturally thrive, where transformation becomes possible, and where the careful work of systemic change begins. 

Think of it, humans thrive in liminality! 

Frank