earned citizenship

[gaffo]

One of the state's central duties is to ensure only those who are sufficiently prepared are allowed to participate in society in ways that significantly effect others. That means business owners and maids just as much as public servants. All citizens must understand the civic process, how to proceed through it, most importantly how to challenge it successfully, and how to opt out if the system isn't right for you.

bonus: A good citizen is not a compliant one, the way the state is set up today. A good citizen challenges the state when it's obviously wrong and when it's probably wrong if they have the time. A good citizen does not vote in a corrupt system. Participation = perpetuation.

This must be a should rather than an is. But how could we possibly ever make this into an is, when the overwhelming majority of our population is granted citizenship by virtue of location of birth? Even to say that citizenship is partially limited until a person reaches voting age is still problematic, because a person is free of limitations upon reaching a certain age, whether ready or not.

there should almost be no barriers to citizenship, i affirm citizenship via being born here.

without that we end up with - Palestinians born in Israel's WB, Labanon, Syria, Gaza - for going on 69 yrs now - with no citizenship in the lands they live in.

like all the Black Americans (minus the few freed ones) - millions for 200 yrs from 1650 to 1865.

so no, denial of citizenship to the land one is born in is evil and wrong.

[gaffo]

One of the state's central duties is to ensure only those who are sufficiently prepared are allowed to participate in society in ways that significantly effect others. That means business owners and maids just as much as public servants. All citizens must understand the civic process, how to proceed through it, most importantly how to challenge it successfully, and how to opt out if the system isn't right for you.

bonus: A good citizen is not a compliant one, the way the state is set up today. A good citizen challenges the state when it's obviously wrong and when it's probably wrong if they have the time. A good citizen does not vote in a corrupt system. Participation = perpetuation.

This must be a should rather than an is. But how could we possibly ever make this into an is, when the overwhelming majority of our population is granted citizenship by virtue of location of birth? Even to say that citizenship is partially limited until a person reaches voting age is still problematic, because a person is free of limitations upon reaching a certain age, whether ready or not.

I wasn't expecting an actual response with actual points in it.. This truly is the unicorn of the Philosophy Now Forums! Thanks.

Do you concur that if the social contract isn't explicit and voluntary, it's an excuse for a slave state/feudalism/etc.?

The first step would be to spell out the rights and duties of citizenship. There are millions of words written about this but even the most official ones are completely open to interpretation and contradict each other in seriously existential ways. On the whole, the US govt. (the only one i'm competent to judge) is completely hypocritical. To say we need a valid social contract is more on the wish/dream side of things than the practical application side, but it's important to acknowledge the direction we want to go in before we can start moving.

Let me restate it this way:
IF citizenship is meaningful as a foundation for the rest of society and,
IF a person has a reasonable ability to understand and participate in society and,
IF it is possible to reasonably test that ability
THEN it is imperative that we grant citizenship based on that test rather than any more arbitrary method

I believe the premises all hold up. More than that, if it is Not possible to test, we need to get on it right away, because it's still the only way to really know if someone is being granted power by merit. But i digress.

There is a class of people who don't particularly care about how things work as long as they work. I call them be-ers (Morlock). They require a completely different sort of integration with the rest of society than those who want to understand and manipulate it for the good of all (do-ers, Eloi). If simple citizenship isn't sufficient to manage that difference, perhaps there should be multiple kinds/levels of citizenship with increasing voting rights. I believe we should all be given 100 votes to distribute at will, to enable meaningful bespoke application of them. A person could pass a basic civics test and be given 10 votes, then granted more as their knowledge progresses, or whatever.

Let me just dispense with the "who gets to decide" argument before it's raised. That argument applies to ALL forms of political ideology and isn't particularly relevant here.

your views to me seem very Fascist, the South used similar, i.e.,literacy tests to allow (block) the vote to minorities.

you wish to have The State determine who is worthy to be deamed a Citizen - no fucking way!

i think you may just be naive and wish to "make a better society" via a smarter populus. which i applaud, but i think that is via education (and education here sucks so educational reform - like maybe teaching civis again? like they did and stopped doing so 30 yrs ago).

not by gov decree. unless you wish to go back to our glory days of, while, male, rich - before you can vote.

Road Island had a civil war (Thomas Dorr) over that in 1820 BTW. after a couple of small battles that State was forced to change thier 1640 constitution to one that allowed non-property owner white males to also vote.

[gaffo]

I agree with all of the above with the exception of having levels of citizenship and votes.

I understand that there would be degrees of citizenship, as it were, based on merit. Is my understanding close enough to on point for purposes of discussion?

If so, while there is merit in meritocracy in some situations, in the case of citizenship this would create a whole class of disenfranchised individuals.

that is correct, and why our Constitution explicity forbids "Titles of Nobility". setting up a tiered citizenship american population would be literally illegal and unconstitutional.

[gaffo]

Everything you say, and you know this, is obviously antithetical to the ideas of one-person-one-vote and the-majority-rules. It’s a moral imperative that everyone who is a self be respected as a self. That means everyone

exactly!

unless you are black, a woman, or do not own property...........

[gaffo]

Tests, tests, tests, testity tests. Yes, that's definitely a distinct and separate topic. My blanket answer is that any attempt at merit is better than what we have now, which is anti-intellectual shenanigans. There are ways to test for these things, but what matters more is that if it's so important (and the contention here is that it is foundationally important) ,then we MUST test for it, even if our tests start out not being good enough. They can improve. This is the same problem with age of consent. If sex is such a big deal than it's critical that we rely on actual evidence of someone's actual ability to consent, not just blanket ban certain actions at the unnecessary expense of reasonable people's legitimate freedom.

The age of consent thing works both ways, of course. There are some people who are Never ready for sex, or personal responsibility for that matter. And that's explicitly why we have the idea of guardianship.. but consent is a whole topic...

age of consent is 14 in missippi and alabama (marrage) - with parents consent.

its 18 in other states.

world is complex, as are laws.

lets just make it simple, repeal the 19th, the 14th, and go back to the olden days we lived under in our Democratic Republic during the majority of our nation's timeline (first 150 yrs) - not these last 100 yrs.

majority timeline rules.

only property owning white males should have the right to vote.

[gaffo]

I wasn't expecting an actual response with actual points in it..

thanks for nuthin', guy


The inherently moral worth and dignity of all persons cannot be a universal default.

mebbe not, but even the lowest scumbag belongs to himself, is a person: there's your universal default (ownness)

'course, that loops back to my post above which didn't cut the mustard...

and thats why i oppose the Death Penalty, it gives The State the power to remove life (an inalienable right (only "God" - the life giving, has the right to remove that same life).

[gaffo]

I can't concur that mere existence has value.

then you do not affirm Natural Law (Inalienable rights).

interesting...........i do not share your view of course.

[Advocate]

I can't concur that mere existence has value.

then you do not affirm Natural Law (Inalienable rights).

interesting...........i do not share your view of course.

Natural Law is that you can do whatever you can get away with - might makes right. Do you mean Common Law - the pre-judicial agreements between people that allow for society to exist?

Rights don't have meaning outside the context of an agreement with others, balanced against responsibility.

[Advocate]

I agree with all of the above with the exception of having levels of citizenship and votes.

I understand that there would be degrees of citizenship, as it were, based on merit. Is my understanding close enough to on point for purposes of discussion?

If so, while there is merit in meritocracy in some situations, in the case of citizenship this would create a whole class of disenfranchised individuals.

that is correct, and why our Constitution explicity forbids "Titles of Nobility". setting up a tiered citizenship american population would be literally illegal and unconstitutional.

Titles of nobility are inherited and were rejected because they are not meritocratic. The propertied white male founders made many mistakes but that wasn't one of them. I am suggesting requiring merit, not allowing inherited power. How you got that interpretation is incomprehensible. Titles of nobility are nothing like "a teired citizenship" the way this post is about.

[Advocate]

>your views to me seem very Fascist, the South used similar, i.e.,literacy tests to allow (block) the vote to minorities.

>you wish to have The State determine who is worthy to be deamed a Citizen - no fucking way!

The state Always chooses who is deemed worthy of being a citizen. That's one of their central functions. the only morally acceptable way to do so is by testing for merit.

>i think you may just be naive and wish to "make a better society" via a smarter populus. which i applaud, but i think that is via education (and education here sucks so educational reform - like maybe teaching civis again? like they did and stopped doing so 30 yrs ago).

Education is important to ensure everyone has the opportunity to participate as much as they want, but is a separate issue than whether a person who isn't capable should still be able to vote. The capacity to do something well is a Minimum for things like politics that have intentional effects on the lives of others.

>not by gov decree. unless you wish to go back to our glory days of, while, male, rich - before you can vote.

Again, government decree is the default. Right now it's granted by birth. Birth process nothing about someone's ability to understand politics. Not does it indicate someone's future level of interest or involvement. It's essentially arbitrary.

[henry quirk]

One of the state's central duties is to ensure only those who are sufficiently prepared are allowed to participate in society in ways that significantly effect others. That means business owners and maids just as much as public servants. All citizens must understand the civic process, how to proceed through it, most importantly how to challenge it successfully, and how to opt out if the system isn't right for you.

bonus: A good citizen is not a compliant one, the way the state is set up today. A good citizen challenges the state when it's obviously wrong and when it's probably wrong if they have the time. A good citizen does not vote in a corrupt system. Participation = perpetuation.

This must be a should rather than an is. But how could we possibly ever make this into an is, when the overwhelming majority of our population is granted citizenship by virtue of location of birth? Even to say that citizenship is partially limited until a person reaches voting age is still problematic, because a person is free of limitations upon reaching a certain age, whether ready or not.

there should almost be no barriers to citizenship, i affirm citizenship via being born here.

without that we end up with - Palestinians born in Israel's WB, Labanon, Syria, Gaza - for going on 69 yrs now - with no citizenship in the lands they live in.

like all the Black Americans (minus the few freed ones) - millions for 200 yrs from 1650 to 1865.

so no, denial of citizenship to the land one is born in is evil and wrong.

exactly

if this...

A man belongs to himself.

His life, liberty, and property are his.

His life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

...is your charter, your constitution: then there's no need for tests or oaths

[henry quirk]

I wasn't expecting an actual response with actual points in it..

thanks for nuthin', guy


The inherently moral worth and dignity of all persons cannot be a universal default.

mebbe not, but even the lowest scumbag belongs to himself, is a person: there's your universal default (ownness)

'course, that loops back to my post above which didn't cut the mustard...

and thats why i oppose the Death Penalty, it gives The State the power to remove life (an inalienable right (only "God" - the life giving, has the right to remove that same life).

agreed

seems to me: joe murders, the family & friends of Joe's victim want justice, then the victim's family & friends ought to be willin' to enact it

the state's monopoly blunts justice & empowers cowards

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=470103 time=1599662972 user_id=472]
[quote=gaffo post_id=470012 time=1599628372 user_id=15438]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=469977 time=1599609095 user_id=472]
[b]I wasn't expecting an actual response with actual points in it..[/b]

thanks for nuthin', guy


[b]The inherently moral worth and dignity of all persons cannot be a universal default.[/b]

mebbe not, but even the lowest scumbag belongs to himself, is a person: there's your universal default ([i]ownness[/i])

'course, that loops back to my post above which didn't cut the mustard... :thumbsdown:
[/quote]

and thats why i oppose the Death Penalty, it gives The State the power to remove life (an inalienable right (only "God" - the life giving, has the right to remove that same life).
[/quote]

agreed

seems to me: joe murders, the family & friends of Joe's victim want justice, then the victim's family & friends ought to be willin' to enact it

the state's monopoly blunts justice & empowers cowards
[/quote]

All individuals are entitled to justice. Very few individuals are entitled to be arbiters of justice.

[henry quirk]

Natural Law is that you can do whatever you can get away with - might makes right.

what you describe is the exact opposite of natural law/rights

life, liberty, property: the recognition of, the defense of, extend directly from the fact a man belongs to himself and the moral fact it's wrong to use a man as property


Do you mean Common Law - the pre-judicial agreements between people that allow for society to exist?

these are codifications of what is, not a source of what is


Rights don't have meaning outside the context of an agreement with others, balanced against responsibility.

the fact a man belongs to himself and the moral fact it's wrong to use a man as property lay the foundation for morality (how men [should] interact, transact, etc.)

[henry quirk]

and thats why i oppose the Death Penalty, it gives The State the power to remove life (an inalienable right (only "God" - the life giving, has the right to remove that same life).

agreed

seems to me: joe murders, the family & friends of Joe's victim want justice, then the victim's family & friends ought to be willin' to enact it

the state's monopoly blunts justice & empowers cowards

All individuals are entitled to justice. Very few individuals are entitled to be arbiters of justice.

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? F. Bastiat