From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 13:33:36 MDT
>From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>What do you call "citizenship"?
The short answer is the sum total of rights AND duties we have as
citizens.
>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.
Very good questions all! Exactly what I was looking for!
Rights are the sum total yes, you have them by virtue of being too
young till you get to a certain age, then kind of like the Amish
do, you would actually have to join to be a member.
I don't think it has to be military alone, neither did Heinlein.
Working in a senior center, a homeless shelter, or any of the other
thankless tasks out there would qualify you. The idea is that you
would have joined a society of your own free will and actually paid
a part of the real costs with a term of public service. A number of
Vets I know went on to do a stint in the peace corp after they got
out.
The "innate" rights we have now are not actually innate, people
paid a high price for us to have them, and as Jefferson and others
have warned they must continue to be paid if we are to keep them.
>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?
TANSTAAFL, these things aren't free, people are paying for them,
but not all the people. Instead of 5% paying for 50% it's 5% paying
100%.
I understand the reluctance to pay for something you formally
thought was free.
This is still only a discussion.
>And what if that government decides that owning a gun is illegal
It's not 100% but it's getting there, I can't legally live in
Chicago.
>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?
You become a member and prevent that.
>If gays are banned from the military or from some government
>programs, should they be banned from earning their vote as well?
Since gays are currently discriminated against in the military it
is only right that they be exempted from any military service
requirement at this time.
I don't believe in any mandatory military service.
>If anarchists refuse to support the government in any way, does
>this mean they can't vote?
Should anarchists vote?
>As soon as you give the government the right to decide who should
>vote, you open up these possibilities.
But as a member you get to decide what the government does.
>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?
Or would it be a democracy of the members who actually pay the
costs?
Thanks for the excellent questions!
8th and last post :(
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:45 MST