Citzenship: Benefits and Obligations

[therealUT]

This is a personal reflection upon rights and citizenship, and I welcome any comments, questions, suggestions, etc.

First, it appears that concepts called natural rights might exist (we will assume they do). If so, these rights appear limited to life, liberty, and, as a direct derivative/consequence of the previous two rights, property. Any state, to be legitimately just, must absolutely respect these rights. Thus any resident, denizen, visitor, etc. to any legitimate state must know that these rights are secure. Citizenship does not confer these rights.

So, what then does citizenship do for the individual? It seems as though citizenship comes with some form of artificial benefits: viz., the privileges of voting, trial by a jury of peers, etc. Yet, the conferring of benefits is a transfer, thus an exchange; however, it seems implausible that any exchange is one sided. All parties to all exchanges are subject to both benefits and obligations (the obligation usually cited with respect to citizenship is gratitude). The following appears odd, though: (1) that one is born with a right to liberty, yet by birth-right citizenship one is automatically obliged to some entity by a consent that one never gave; and, (2) that gratitude is an actual obligation. Both (1) and (2) present obstacles to the generally accepted account of citizenship (and, the obligation of taxes and/or jury-duty appear to be consistently unfulfilled by the majority of citizens in the US).

Thus, for citizenship to make sense as a coherent concept, it must be refined. Birth-right citizenship is, ostensibly, an incoherent concept. Further, the obligations of citizenship must be tangible and "real", and they must be knowingly and willingly consented to by the citizen. One must be given the choice to not consent, yet to continue to reside in the security of one's natural rights.

My proposal is that citizenship should be offered to any individual that is willing to fulfill the obligations and should be rewarded with a great many benefits.

Obligations:
- Citizens, and only citizens, will be called upon to fight the nation's wars. Thus, all citizens must complete military basic training (unless the citizen is medically unqualified), so that they are ready when conscripted.
- Citizens would be required to attend annual military drill to keep their skills fresh; further, citizens would be required to pass semi-annual physical fitness tests. Those that fail would be called to attend weekly physical fitness sessions.
- Citizens must complete three years of service (either civil or military). Aside from a cadre of experts, law enforcement, emergency services, and government bureaucratic positions would be staffed by individuals completing their three-year citizenship requirement.
- Citizens must pay an income tax (all other revenue generated by the state would be generated in the form of sales taxes on non-necessary items).
- Citizens must routinely serve on jury duty (juries would be expanded from twelve to hundreds, in Classical style courts and litigation). Citizens would have a certain number of excused absences per year; once a citizen has exceeding his/her limit, that citizen would face a citizenship hearing.

Now that these seemingly harsh and Orwellian/Lenin-ish obligations have been laid down (remember, though, they are only obligations for those who choose to become citizens in order to reap the benefits that follow), we can look at the benefits.

Benefits:
- Free education for the children of citizens: K-Ph.D. The only restriction would be merit (if you are not accepted to college or a grad program, you are not accepted based solely on your academic record). Further, the K-12 education offered to citizens would be the very best education possible; the education offered to non-citizens would merely comprise the basics and would turn to pay-as-you go education starting at grade 10.
- Free healthcare: while non-citizens would have access to free safety-net healthcare (simply preserving life and limb), citizens would have access to healthcare that aimed at quality of life.
- Voting: Citizens would be offered the privilege of voting and of running for office. Non-citizens would have no vote; however, the only legislation that would bind on non-citizens would be that regarding infractions on others rights to life, liberty, and/or property. The legislature could pass any laws with respect to citizens (e.g., no drugs, no booze, etc.)
- Free access to roads and highways: All roads would be tolled for non-citizens; however, citizens would basically be provided with EZ-Passes, yet no tolls would be assessed to citizens.
- Trial by a jury of peers: Citizens would be tried in front of a jury consisting of fellow citizens; non-citizens would be tried in front of a jury consisting of citizens.
- Social Security: Citizens would receive Social Security once they have reached retirement age.

I am not sure that these lists of obligations and benefits are exhaustive; however, I do think these would be a great start, giving individuals the ability to choose what is more important to them (complete freedom or restrictions they have consented to in light of the promised benefits). None of these obligations consist of anything more than effort (not merit, not money, not property, not lineage).

 

[YorkVol]

I'm sorry, this is just too "Confucing" for me.

 

[volinbham]

I'll just start with one of the concepts - the birth-right citizenship is not a problem as far as I can see since citizenship can be renounced. It's basically opt-out vs opt-in but no one is forced to remain a citizen.

 

[lawgator1]

Hundreds on a jury?

Well, I guess that would take care of the jobs and public works issues for you, since every courthouse in the country would have to be rebuilt. Either that or hold court in high school football bleachers.

 

[OldandStillaVol]

We've discussed this before and I am generally supportive of your citizenship ideas with some caveats:

1. It may be difficult for some folks physically to serve in the military (physical or mental impairments). I don't think those people should be forced out of citizenship.

2. There should be another class of individuals who can reside in the country - call them permanent residents who have many of the same rights and obligations of citizenship. Right to work but obligation to pay income tax.

 

[Weezy]

If I'm on jury duty, and there's a non-citizen on the stand...I'm making him pay. Don't really care for those types. And I expect our citizens serving in law enforcement to treat them accordingly.

And I'm not a fan of foreigners coming over and taking benefits that they never paid into. Getting all our artificial limbs.

 

[hog88]

Not quite with you on this, some good ideas though. First disagrement would be the manditory military service, in your plan you call for 3 years of military OR civil, I don't think there should be a choice.

 

[Weezy]

Could one, drop and add back his citizen's rights at any time? Like drop it during war, add it back when the cycle elects somebody different. If so, does them not paying tax the previous years or attaining SS have any drawbacks. Or if I drop them, are they gone forever.

 

[n_huffhines]

Looks like I would want to be a non-citizen

 

[Gramps]

Looks like I would want to be a non-citizen

Yeah, me to.

 

[PKT_VOL]

1) Are your "natural" rights innate, God-given, or derived from the rational? If they are the first two, they have no foundation. We had a discussion about this a couple weeks ago.

2) I agree with no natural born citizenship.

3) I agree with the tenets of your obligations of citizenship minus the income tax. Specifying "income tax" is ridiculous. It should merely be subject to taxation.

4) Free healthcare is absurd.

5) Entitled to Social Security? A "benefit" is being able to participate in a ponzi scheme?

 

[therealUT]

1) Are your "natural" rights innate, God-given, or derived from the rational? If they are the first two, they have no foundation. We had a discussion about this a couple weeks ago.

They are certainly not God-given. As for the foundation of natural rights, no rights theorist has successfully been able to ground innate natural rights. Of course, this does not mean it cannot be done; it simply means it has not been done.

The only sustained "refutation of natural rights", however, came from Hume. Yet, even many Hume contemporaries and scholars (to include Smith, Reid, and James Harris) admit that he fudged on his proof of their refutation by sticking solely to property and contracts.

Thus, the question is still certainly open; most contemporary political philosophers only deal in the currency of natural rights.

2) I agree with no natural born citizenship.

3) I agree with the tenets of your obligations of citizenship minus the income tax. Specifying "income tax" is ridiculous. It should merely be subject to taxation.

Correct. The Citizens could certainly legislate and impose whatever taxes and benefits they wanted for themselves.

4) Free healthcare is absurd.

I am not certain that I agree with that. If I opt to join a club and pay dues, knowing those dues will be pooled in order to provide healthcare for all the members, is this absurd? What is the difference if the membership of the club is expanded?

5) Entitled to Social Security? A "benefit" is being able to participate in a ponzi scheme?

Right; it certainly would not be structured as the current social security is structured. It would be more akin to a mandated 401k or IRA for each citizen; basically, each citizen would be forced to ensure that they were providing for their own retirement.

 

[DC_Vol]

I am not certain that I agree with that. If I opt to join a club and pay dues, knowing those dues will be pooled in order to provide healthcare for all the members, is this absurd? What is the difference if the membership of the club is expanded?

The first thing that jumps out to me is this is not free healthcare. This sounds like the insurance pool I currently pay into.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

RealUT, how would you define rights and privileges?

Do you believe rights are derived from property?

 

[TruthIsOutThere]

Straight up retarded. OP must be 12.

 

[therealUT]

RealUT, how would you define rights and privileges?

Do you believe rights are derived from property?

I would state that natural human rights are simply those things we are entitled to simply by being human. The two that can easily be pointed to (and are claimed as self-evident by Hobbes, Locke, Hutcheson, etc.) are life and liberty. Property rights are a derivative of life and liberty (both Locke and Kant give interesting, albeit problematic, accounts of this derivation).

Hume, however, focused solely on property rights (the admittedly most problematic rights of the three) in his refutation of natural rights and natural justice. Insofar as he did not take on the right to life, he did not provide a rigorous proof that there are no such things as natural rights.

Mackie has a great statement which regards arguing against long-held beliefs:

Since it goes against assumptions ingrained in our thought and built into some of the ways in which language is used, since it conflicts with what is sometimes called common sense, it needs very solid support. It is not something we can accept lightly or casually and then quietly pass on.

This seems to be the charge against Hume; he provides the very weakest argument against natural rights by focusing solely on the "natural" right which many rights theorists were already unsure about.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I am of the belief we are born into this world as property owners i.e. we own ourselves.

As property owners we have natural rights. The only limitation of our rights, is the equal rights of others.
In this country we have twisted the meaning of rights & privileges.
A right is something we can do without asking permission. Can not be revoked.

A privilege is Something we must ask permission. Therefore may be revoked.

 

[BeecherVol]

Hundreds on a jury?

Well, I guess that would take care of the jobs and public works issues for you, since every courthouse in the country would have to be rebuilt. Either that or hold court in high school football bleachers.

Short term Shovel Ready jobs paid for by increased taxes. UE would temporarily go down.

Whats not to like.

 

[PKT_VOL]

They are certainly not God-given. As for the foundation of natural rights, no rights theorist has successfully been able to ground innate natural rights. Of course, this does not mean it cannot be done; it simply means it has not been done.

The only sustained "refutation of natural rights", however, came from Hume. Yet, even many Hume contemporaries and scholars (to include Smith, Reid, and James Harris) admit that he fudged on his proof of their refutation by sticking solely to property and contracts.

Thus, the question is still certainly open; most contemporary political philosophers only deal in the currency of natural rights.

No. Simply no.

There has not been one philosopher or otherwise which has "successfully been able to ground innate natural rights." This is because it is simply impossible to do; not that "it has not been done". How can you successfully argue for something which doesn't exist?

Jean-Paul Sartre defeated such a notion (although unintentionally). "Existence precedes essence."

I do not believe in "inalienable rights" that originate from God or that are naturally innate to all humans. Although I personally believe in inalienable rights derived by own intuition, I do not believe that every person has to have such rights. They ought to have them in my opinion, but I believe they are free to reject such rights. It might sound odd, but I think there are plenty of people around the world who would gladly reject those rights. I believe they ought to have the ability to do so. They should not be forced to have rights that they do not want. Islam actually falls under this. There are many in the Muslim world that would reality give up their "inalienable rights" as we see them to live in a utopia Muslim society (in hopes of reaching heaven). Historically, people have been willing to trade their life, freedom, and property for a variety of reasons. If they do so willingly, or by force via their social contract, it is a valid transaction in my eyes.

I am not certain that I agree with that. If I opt to join a club and pay dues, knowing those dues will be pooled in order to provide healthcare for all the members, is this absurd? What is the difference if the membership of the club is expanded?

We are talking about healthcare. The only way your plan would work is if healthcare was owned and operated by the government. Then again, that has major downfalls.

Right; it certainly would not be structured as the current social security is structured. It would be more akin to a mandated 401k or IRA for each citizen; basically, each citizen would be forced to ensure that they were providing for their own retirement.

Forced to provide money to a 401k or IRA? What happened to liberty?

 

[golfballs]

You don't have to be a citizen to get rights and privileges any more. Look at all them illegals! Obama too

 

[therealUT]

No. Simply no.

There has not been one philosopher or otherwise which has "successfully been able to ground innate natural rights." This is because it is simply impossible to do; not that "it has not been done". How can you successfully argue for something which doesn't exist?

Jean-Paul Sartre defeated such a notion (although unintentionally). "Existence precedes essence."

I do not believe in "inalienable rights" that originate from God or that are naturally innate to all humans. Although I personally believe in inalienable rights derived by own intuition, I do not believe that every person has to have such rights. They ought to have them in my opinion, but I believe they are free to reject such rights. It might sound odd, but I think there are plenty of people around the world who would gladly reject those rights. I believe they ought to have the ability to do so. They should not be forced to have rights that they do not want. Islam actually falls under this. There are many in the Muslim world that would reality give up their "inalienable rights" as we see them to live in a utopia Muslim society (in hopes of reaching heaven). Historically, people have been willing to trade their life, freedom, and property for a variety of reasons. If they do so willingly, or by force via their social contract, it is a valid transaction in my eyes.

You are standing upon a fallacy. The lack of a logical proof does not prove non-existence. Natural rights were simply taken as self-evident until Hume's supposed refutation of natural rights. Yet, upon reflection, his refutation is not that strong.

Now, the existence of natural rights does not necessarily mean that natural rights and natural justice map on to morality; it does mean that there are some innate natural claims that all humans are entitled to make.

We are talking about healthcare. The only way your plan would work is if healthcare was owned and operated by the government. Then again, that has major downfalls.

You are having a tough time wrapping your head around the concept of a government in which every citizen has actually opted-in; willfully electing to pay taxes and to carry out very tangible obligations. The government would look much more like an organization with membership and dues.

Forced to provide money to a 401k or IRA? What happened to liberty?

What do you mean? One knows when they opt-in what they obligations are. Do you lose your liberty when you decide to enter into a private establishment and abide by their rules?

A citizen would knowingly accept the obligations prior to becoming a citizen; further, the citizen would always posses the option of opting out and becoming a resident for whom the only law is to respect the life, liberty, and property of others.

 

[YorkVol]

Reading the OP again, I think the idea of a Meritocracy has value, but I think it only really works if everything is pretty much the same between citizens and non-citizens as far as property ownership, taxes and basic rights. Otherwise you build in conflict and class warfare needlessly. The major difference would be citizens would have earned the franchise (right tovote and hold office). Of course I get all my politics and philosophy from Heinlein so take it for what its worth.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You are standing upon a fallacy. The lack of a logical proof does not prove non-existence. Natural rights were simply taken as self-evident until Hume's supposed refutation of natural rights. Yet, upon reflection, his refutation is not that strong.

I am resting on no such fallacy. You are grasping at straws.

To say that "the lack of a logical proof does not prove non-existence" is silly. If you want to take this stance, you can just go all the way back to extreme skepticism. Neither of us want to do that. Instead of talking about natural rights, you could say that there are some pigs on planet Earth which have the ability to fly. Logically one can not prove this statement but it does not prove non-existence. Maybe it lives in an unexplored part of the world? Maybe he has advanced human warning capabilities which is why it has always been hidden from view of humans? If you want to go down that road, it only leads to extreme skepticism.

However, I believe one can logically prove that innate natural rights is preposterous. When you a born, you are just an new life form on a watery planet in a vast universe. There are not innate rights in which you are born with. You are just born. You can certainly have artificially induced rights endowed upon you at birth, but that does not mean those rights are "natural" or innate.

Again, existence precedes essence. Essence does not precede existence.

Now, the existence of natural rights does not necessarily mean that natural rights and natural justice map on to morality; it does mean that there are some innate natural claims that all humans are entitled to make.

No. Natural rights are artificially constructed by humans in the Western World. They are not real, they are not innate, they are tangible.

You are having a tough time wrapping your head around the concept of a government in which every citizen has actually opted-in; willfully electing to pay taxes and to carry out very tangible obligations. The government would look much more like an organization with membership and dues.

The problem with your analogy is similar to the problem of communism, scale. Your analogy is on a small scale.

Healthcare in your system would be run by the government. On a large scale, that causes all sorts of problems.

What do you mean? One knows when they opt-in what they obligations are. Do you lose your liberty when you decide to enter into a private establishment and abide by their rules?

I am not arguing against it on the basis of social contract. You are right on that front.

It is a matter of principle within your new government. You take humans to have the innate natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Liberty and forced financial restrictions are contradictory.

A citizen would knowingly accept the obligations prior to becoming a citizen; further, the citizen would always posses the option of opting out and becoming a resident for whom the only law is to respect the life, liberty, and property of others.

Yep, that is social contract though.

 

[therealUT]

I am resting on no such fallacy. You are grasping at straws.

To say that "the lack of a logical proof does not prove non-existence" is silly. If you want to take this stance, you can just go all the way back to extreme skepticism.

This is not only a fallacy but is absolutely false. The entire structure on logic relies on the notion that there exist basic axioms and basic premises: things that cannot be proven logically. The vast majority of these axioms and premises are non-empirical: they are things that certain individuals see as simple, self-evident truths. In fact, to take your view is to go all the back to extreme skepticism, since without accepting basic, unprovable premises, one could not prove the existence of anything else; save those things which were empirical (of course, you would have to assume existence without any form of logical proof, as well).

Neither of us want to do that. Instead of talking about natural rights, you could say that there are some pigs on planet Earth which have the ability to fly. Logically one can not prove this statement but it does not prove non-existence.

You are correct; it does not prove non-existence. Your pigs fly example might sound ridiculous; however, there have been plenty of notions that were assumed to be ridiculous prior to being logically proven. Further, there are plenty of notions that were proven by valid logical arguments, based upon what we now know to be false premises, that we view as ridiculous. Of course, there are very few sound logical proofs with which the first premise does not begin with "If...". Yet, that only proves a conditional; it does not prove existence.

However, I believe one can logically prove that innate natural rights is preposterous. When you a born, you are just an new life form on a watery planet in a vast universe. There are not innate rights in which you are born with. You are just born. You can certainly have artificially induced rights endowed upon you at birth, but that does not mean those rights are "natural" or innate.

That is certainly not a proof. I can just as easily state that when one is born, they have a natural entitlement to their life. If one kills them, they have neglected/failed to respect that right and have committed an injustice.

No. Natural rights are artificially constructed by humans in the Western World. They are not real, they are not innate, they are tangible.

I absolutely disagree with you on this every single proposition you just stated.

It is a matter of principle within your new government. You take humans to have the innate natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Liberty and forced financial restrictions are contradictory.

There is nothing forced. One has the choice not to be a citizen and still retain their rights to life, liberty, and property. If one wants extra benefits, one pays in and accepts certain conditions.

Yep, that is social contract though.

Correct; it would be the first one ever, as well.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This is not only a fallacy but is absolutely false. The entire structure on logic relies on the notion that there exist basic axioms and basic premises: things that cannot be proven logically. The vast majority of these axioms and premises are non-empirical: they are things that certain individuals see as simple, self-evident truths. In fact, to take your view is to go all the back to extreme skepticism, since without accepting basic, unprovable premises, one could not prove the existence of anything else; save those things which were empirical (of course, you would have to assume existence without any form of logical proof, as well).

I didn't say that the logic of your statement was faulty. I said that it was silly to proceed down such a route. I gave the flying pig example. I was pointing out that your argument, while technically valid in the strict logical sense, is pragmatically absurd.

Innate natural rights do not have any logical basis.

I can certainly prove to myself in a logical manner that I do not have natural rights and that I was certainly not born with innate natural rights. I cannot, however, prove this universally because I cannot be the conscious minds of others; although I believe I could persuade them logically to my position. The universal aspect of this debate is where your "lack of a logical proof does not prove non-existence" comes into play.

Furthermore, you nor any other philosopher has ever been able to logically prove the existence of innate natural rights (in a universal manner). From the skeptical view, you can certainly talk yourself into believing such a notion if your axioms are different (and I might add erroneous) than my own. It would be interesting to see how you might logically frame that argument.

I tried to boil it down to a beautifully simple, yet eloquent phrase; "existence precedes essence". It really is that straightforward.

You are correct; it does not prove non-existence. Your pigs fly example might sound ridiculous; however, there have been plenty of notions that were assumed to be ridiculous prior to being logically proven. Further, there are plenty of notions that were proven by valid logical arguments, based upon what we now know to be false premises, that we view as ridiculous. Of course, there are very few sound logical proofs with which the first premise does not begin with "If...". Yet, that only proves a conditional; it does not prove existence.

I agree. Logic all depends on the axioms. It is obvious that we have very different axioms on this issue.

That is certainly not a proof. I can just as easily state that when one is born, they have a natural entitlement to their life. If one kills them, they have neglected/failed to respect that right and have committed an injustice.

Ha. Laughably absurd.

One does not have a "natural entitlement to their life." Where the hell do you get this stuff from? You are a certainly more sagacious than this.

Now, you may certainly believe people ought to have a natural entitlement to their life. But that is a totally different statement. One is artificially evolved from personal intellect and the other is naturally innate.

I absolutely disagree with you on this every single proposition you just stated.

Tragic. Feel free to disprove or offer a counter to them.

There is nothing forced. One has the choice not to be a citizen and still retain their rights to life, liberty, and property. If one wants extra benefits, one pays in and accepts certain conditions.

Again, you are taking the social contract angle.

My point of contention was with the principal of it. You say that liberty is a naturally innate right. You "benefit" is not really a benefit at all and is an unnecessary oppression of financial liberty.

Correct; it would be the first one ever, as well.

Explicit, yes. Implicit, no.