From: Forrest Bishop (forrestb@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 18:23:41 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Patriotism and Citizenship
> 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.
Never read any Heinlein, so can't really comment directly on the above. The notion of universal federal service is a contradiction
in terms. A federated republic of sovereign states, such as outlined in the US Constitution, does not grant the central government
jurisdiction over the disposition of sovereign individuals that happen to be residing on land claimed by one of its member States.
This was made quite clear by the delineation and enumeration of powers granted the confederated goverment and further clarified in
the 9th (other natural rights not enumerated) and 10th Amendment (State's rights). The federal government excercises a very limited
control over the States- at least the ones that elect to continue their membership in the federation- and a few pieces of land
granted to it by title from the States, hence the name "United States".
The concept is quite different from that of an authoritarian central government that claims that the people residing on the
territory it also claims are therefore its chattel property, or "citizens". Such a despotic, degenerate form of governance could
then be said to include universal servitude. Incidentally, the 14th Amendment, positing dual citizenship (US and State), was not
properly ratified, nor does the Buck Act appear to be lawful.
Harvy Newstrom rhetorically questions:
> 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?
The *privilege* of voting does not confer a right to a say in how the government is run. Once elected, the politician is free to
lie, cheat and steal without any regard for his campaign promises. The cases of Clinton and FDR illustrate this phenomenon very
comprehensively.
> Should a right to a trial by jury or
> access to council be earned?
No, there is no reason a government even needs to be the justice-service provider.
> 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?
The default position is no government whatsoever. Then the issue of voting for whom to steal from- the political means to wealth-
goes away.
-- Forrest Bishop Chairman, Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering www.iase.cc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:45 MST