Do you live in the UK?
I didn’t suggest any of that, it’s not my idea that you find objectionable. The devil would be in the detail for something like this, but as a believer in natural stratification within society, which happens whether we like to think it does or not, I don’t see why we don’t simply codify it into our citizenship system too.
Because perhaps one of the main purposes of a democratic system is to counteract the natural tendencies of stratification?
That is why the rich and wellborn opposed it on principle in ancient Greece, and ever since. In some cities (I read in Durant) the oligarchs formed a society and members swore the oath, “I will be an enemy of the people and will do it all the evil I can.” Clearly meaning “the people”-- singular – to be the group of all citizens but the oligarchs. The mass, the many, hoi polloi.
Good point, and I’m pro-equality of opportunity so I’m certainly not opposed to an equalising force there. However I don’t see why everyone should necessarily be held to the same standard when some are willing to do more and others aren’t. Again, I’m not really looking to create something that would punish people for failing, it’s more rewarding people for doing something or being willing to do something.
I find it interesting that there is a perception in this thread that losing a privileged status is effectively the same as being a second class citizen.
Oh, and that’s not trivial, because Plato/Socrates expressed a lot of intellectual snobbery towards the many, which in high-born Plato’s case was, no doubt, inextricably mixed up with social snobbery. And so it was with middle-born Aristotle, certainly. A very influential outlook in Western history.
It might be something to do with the fact that the “many” happily voted to execute Socrates for not bowing down to what was essentially peer pressure. Funny that the man may have had not such a great view of the mob, or Plato who was his student.
There are so many ways that people get or take rewards. Your basic status as a member of society shouldn’t be one of them.
This proposal is so bizarre in that it seems to come out of a perception that this is something new – “what’s wrong with trying it?”
But the entire recent history of our civilization can be viewed as a struggle for egalitarianism on a politico-social level.
You don’t have to go very far back in our history when enormous injustice and suffering was being experienced because of the legal codification of status. And it’s not completely gone now. And we are surrounded by societies in which the struggle is at a much, much earlier stage.
This whole concept seems beyond naive; it seems downright cruel.
Because having equal status as a member of society in terms of political rights, civil rights, and other freedoms should be a basic right, not a privilege.
That was my idea. If you go back and read though you’ll find that all the perks are earned. They are not transferable, or the default state. The default citizen has all the rights they currently enjoy; there is NO loss of any rights at all. The system I proposed was designed to reward those who live productive, contributive lives within the law. The wealthy and powerful will always find a way to enjoy preferential treatment under the table. This would merely allow those who work hard and keep their noses clean a chance to enjoy some rewards from their government.
Ascenray - I will concede that you have a point, what I’m proposing is very much against the grain of the evolution of civic structures over the last few centuries. I think what marks it out as different is that the intention is to create a system that, by virtue of ones actions (or inactions), one can achieve a preferable position in the social structure. In the past one was simply excluded for crimes such as having the wrong skin colour or genitals, and that’s not what is being advocated here.
That said, I think your main premise that such an idea would undermine concepts such as human rights, which are founded on notions such as basic human equality, is a very valid one. I’m trying and failing to think of a counter argument to it but as I can’t I guess I have to concede the argument.
As much as such a system could, I think, work hypothetically, once applied to dirty reality I doubt it would be particularly workable. Ah well, interesting debate everyone, thanks 
Well I think it’s a terrible idea based on incomplete understanding of a number of core concepts.
Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein was not about a Utopian society.
Other societies did and still do have formal class structures. They sucked for just about everyone except the upper classes.
For all intents and purposes, “money” IS “points” that you can exchange for goods and services and increase your standing is society.
You don’t “get” anything for not being a criminal (other than the local, state and Federal government services provided by your taxes).
We already have a system of rewards where those who contribute to the betterment of society receive more rewards.
“Putting yourself in danger” has no bearing on a person’s ability to lead or properly govern a society.
Who decides what is “good for society”?
This OP is just another example of “I think people who disagree with me are stupid and shouldn’t have a say in the decision making process.” Emporers, hereditary monarhcs, Ceasers, Czars and other dictators have been doing that for millenium. Basically you establish a set of castes or classes based on some arbitrary criteria. Only the upper classes are “educated” or “sophisticated” or “noble” enough to make the important decisions, for the good of the people.
But lo and behold, those decisions always seem to work out in favor of the betterment and preservation of the uppe class structure.
You say people would be able to rise to a higher caste by jumping through some beurocratic hoops. But those hoops are defined by the upper classes. And they will get smaller and higher and harder to jump through as time goes by. Unless of course you were already born into that class.