The thoughtful objections have not been against the idea as such, but mostly against the proposal that a board of investors or government officials would decide who is good enough. That would indeed a problem - startups that VCs or government approve would likely be the ones immitating the previous big thing, rather than building the next big thing. But I think a board is not necessary. In my opinion, all that's needed is that the founders
1. have bachelor's degrees,
2. register a corporation,
3. start with at least $X in the company account.
The value of X is up to debate, but it should not matter which investors they received the money from. Details can be worked out.
Many well-informed criticism of state actions aren't against the goals of the intervention as such but merely against all the possible implementation those goals.
Comments
The thoughtful objections have not been against the idea as such, but mostly against the proposal that a board of investors or government officials would decide who is good enough. That would indeed a problem - startups that VCs or government approve would likely be the ones immitating the previous big thing, rather than building the next big thing. But I think a board is not necessary. In my opinion, all that's needed is that the founders
1. have bachelor's degrees, 2. register a corporation, 3. start with at least $X in the company account.
The value of X is up to debate, but it should not matter which investors they received the money from. Details can be worked out.
Many well-informed criticism of state actions aren't against the goals of the intervention as such but merely against all the possible implementation those goals.
Well as it stands you can get a visa based on simply having a sponsoring employer. This just moves from sponsoring employer to sponsoring VC.