From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 12:38:54 MDT
On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 12:27 pm, Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> Again we were talking about an example of another form of
> government as portrayed in "Starship Troopers". Again in "Starship
> Troopers" it was Federal Service not exclusively military service.
>
> But yes, the one thing I do agree with here is that it might be a
> good idea to have to earn citizenship.
>
> Thanks for your input.
What do you call "citizenship"? What specific rights would be earned?
Should the right to vote be earned? Should the right to have a say in
one's own government be earned? Should a right to a trial by jury or
access to council be earned? Should free-speech, and freedom from
religion be earned? Should freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
be earned? I tend to see most "benefits" of "citizenship" as innate
human rights. I am not sure what benefits could be earned by some that
I would advocate taking away from everyone else.
Heinlein's specific example was voting. Does anyone here really believe
that the default position of the population should be a government in
which they have no say or vote? Does anyone here really advocate taking
the vote away from citizens except for those who have earned it through
Federal service? Is self-governance no longer considered a right, but a
privilege to be doled out by the government to those it deems worthy?
And what if that government decides that owning a gun is illegal and
takes away your voting rights, or decides that our national religion is
Christianity and doesn't allow atheists to vote? Or decides that
speaking out against the government will lose your vote? If gays are
banned from the military or from some government programs, should they
be banned from earning their vote as well? If anarchists refuse to
support the government in any way, does this mean they can't vote? As
soon as you give the government the right to decide who should vote, you
open up these possibilities.
Such a government would not be by the people for the people. Such a
government would be a dictatorship where the only voters are those who
are approved by the government. This would not be a democracy, in my
opinion. Are people here really turning against democracy?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:45 MST