Naturalization is defined as the acquisition of citizenship by an individual who was not a citizen of a particular nation when he or she was born.

An applicant for naturalization must usually become a full-time resident of the particular nation for a minimum period of time.

An oath of loyalty or pledge of allegiance is usually required.

Naturalization, in short, is presumed to be a privilege magnanimously bestowed upon the individual by the State.

The individual is required to "earn" his or her naturalized status. The individual is expected to feel undying gratitude upon being "granted" naturalized status.

But is that really how individuals must view naturalization?

Must this conception of naturalization be considered normal? Is it possible to re-conceive the concept of naturalization completely?

In 1215 AD, the people of England rose up and forced King John of England to sign the Magna Carta, or Magna Carta Libertatum, i.e., "Great Charter of Freedoms."

The Magna Carta forced King John to agree that ordinary individuals had certain rights, that he must follow certain legal procedures, and that he was not above the law.

The Magna Carta reframed long-standing assumptions about who was subordinate to whom, and who was beholden to whom.

What if naturalization was no longer viewed in Medieval terms, as the transfer of a lowly peasant's fealty to a new Lord and Master?

What if individuals the world over rose up and forced governments to sign a Novum Carta, a New Charter?

What if they demanded the right to naturalize on demand?

What if they demanded the right to transfer their citizenship to another country, instantly and immediately, not as a privilege, but as a right, with no limit to the number of times they might transfer their citizenship?

What if naturalization was reconceived as the right of a consumer to choose among "public service providers," as the right of the individual to "shop around" among governments the world over, until he or she found one that supplied the best service at the lowest price?

Reframing the concept of naturalization in such a manner would demote governments the world over to the status of cable television service providers, Internet Service Providers, or cell phone service providers.Reframing the concept of naturalization in such a manner would force governments the world over to compete with each other in the global marketplace to win over citizens as their customers.

When any particular government attempted to oppress its people, they would no longer be forced to pack up and flee.

They would merely exercise their newfound right to naturalize on demand.

Citizens would instantly and immediately transfer their citizenships to another, less oppressive country.

People would stay put physically, but become "Instant Expatriates" enjoying "Instant Political Asylum" and "Instant Extra-Territory" politically.

People would have the right to do this not just once, not just twice, but as many times as necessary to flee political exploitation.

What, if anything, would be wrong with such a scenario?

After all, haven't defenders of the modern nation state assured us that the political legitimacy of modern governments should be predicated upon the "consent of the governed?"

Haven't defenders of the modern nation state assured us that if "We the People" refuse to grant our consent, then modern governments have no moral or legal right to lord over us?

Haven't defenders of the modern nation state assured us that modern governments are our public masters, but rather our public servants?

Haven't defenders of the modern nation state assured us that human rights are universal moral values that trump national sovereignty and national jurisdiction?

This is not to ask whether most mainstream political thinkers are capable of lateral thinking regarding human political institutions.

Cultural anthropologists have long known that human collectives hold utterly irrational but deeply entrenched prejudices about what is "normal" and how the world "has to be."

What we are asking is whether such a scenario is morally culpable.

Is it akin to advocating human sacrifice?

What we are asking is the very same question the people of England asked themselves back in 1215 AD, namely: "Why the hell not?"