About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Evening all,

Over the next few months I'm going to be writing a dissertation on the concept of citizenship and civic imperative in modern society, rather a specific topic... so I thought I'd do some research before I begin.

Question 1:

Does America need a civic revival? What are the rights and roles of citizens in modern day America? Objectivism requires a cultural shift in attitude before political changes, what would this cultural shift look like?

Apologies if this appears vague. I'll make things a lot clearer when I have time.

Regards
Andy Bowman.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Given the admitted vagueness of your opening post, I am taking a risk of not answering the question you posed.

I am therefore posting anyway.

In my view, a major shortcoming of democratic republicanism in America today involves the fallacious notion of unearned citizenship.  Movies based on novels like Starship Troopers openly state these foibles and create interesting worlds in which those who desire political power have to pay a price to earn that power.  I am not suggesting a fascist military state like that depicted in the movie, but I do agree that some baseline qualification beyond mere chronological age is needed to make a participatory government work.

As I understand it, voting privileges originally came in America only to those who owned property.  Later, these privileges got expanded to include more and more of the population without basing this inclusion on whether the included voters had the sense that nature gave a lemon.  Legal immigrants actually have to pass a test of basic knowledge of American history and government in order to earn their citizenship.  I think everyone ought to have to pass such a test in order to vote.

Another idea I have seen on another forum involves a tricameral Congress in which a "House of Plebians" elected by those who own no real estate has the power to veto any bill passed by the first two houses, whose members are elected by propertied voters.

I am sure others who have studied this topic have much more of substance to say, but that should get the ball rolling.


Post 2

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
voting privileges originally came in America only to those who owned property.

There is very good reason for this - those who owned property were the ones who paid the taxes...essentially.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 4/15, 8:11pm)


Post 3

Friday, April 18, 2008 - 10:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Given the admitted vagueness of your opening post, I am taking a risk of not answering the question you posed.

I am therefore posting anyway."

That's the spirit ;)

"In my view, a major shortcoming of democratic republicanism in America today involves the fallacious notion of unearned citizenship. Movies based on novels like Starship Troopers openly state these foibles and create interesting worlds in which those who desire political power have to pay a price to earn that power. I am not suggesting a fascist military state like that depicted in the movie, but I do agree that some baseline qualification beyond mere chronological age is needed to make a participatory government work."

OK, so far so good. Just a couple of qualifiers here...

1) The 'test' for citizenship, the price we have to pay to earn the power to affect citizenship - Who administers this? The federal government? The states? The local community?

"As I understand it, voting privileges originally came in America only to those who owned property. Later, these privileges got expanded to include more and more of the population without basing this inclusion on whether the included voters had the sense that nature gave a lemon. "

Correct. It was originally an idea inherited from the post-English civil war at the Putney debates. Extremely interesting discourse.

"Another idea I have seen on another forum involves a tricameral Congress in which a "House of Plebians" elected by those who own no real estate has the power to veto any bill passed by the first two houses, whose members are elected by propertied voters."

Interesting... is it workable?

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Agreed?

Post 4

Friday, April 18, 2008 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew, I wish I could offer more, but I will instead confess my ignorance rather than put up a pretense of knowledge.

Surely the Web will have informative articles and references based on these leads.

I will say that the changes I suggest will require a well-reasoned Constitutional amendment while concurrently saying that I have no confidence it will ever get proposed or passed.  I do consider a basic citizenship test as something properly conducted in the way the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) conducts it now at the federal level for allowing legal residents to become citizens.  Whatever disagreements I have with the INS, I can hardly argue against the idea that voting citizens ought to have a clue about how our government is supposed to work!

So I guess in a nutshell I am saying that there would be no such thing as a "natural born citizen" but that everyone legally within the borders of the US would qualify as a "resident" while having to make an extra effort to become a voting "citizen" via the INS or equivalent.

I have given the matter little thought beyond that statement.


Post 5

Friday, April 18, 2008 - 2:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke -

I'm not looking for information as such. I'm looking for new perspectives on issues I already have a grasp of. Thanks for all of your help.

Andy.

Post 6

Friday, April 18, 2008 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All four of my grandparents were immigrants and I learned civics from their textbooks.  The tests they took were intentionally inclusive.  The idea was to set some minimum standard so that America could get as many citizens as possible without devolving into the chaos of democracy feared by federalists.  However, in the South, voting tests were exclusionary and unequal.  The White guys got the easy questions.  It is a principle of the Constitution that voting rights are set by the states.  The 26th Amendment would not prohibit a state from lowering the age to 16.  Similarly, the prohibition on a poll tax only applies to federal elections. So, the states could create "civics" tests as a condition for voting, but citizenship is a federal responsibility and the ability to vote is the sine qua non of citizenship.  Non-citizens have the same rights, pay the same taxes, etc, as citizens.  Non-citizens have traditionally served in the U.S. military.  The Irish cavalry sergeant is a cliche in the westerns.  Serving in the military is one way to prove that you deserve citizenship.  That's the Starship Trooper thing. 

Perhaps the first extention of the franchise in colonial times -- and an indication that capitalism was immanent -- was the tallying of tangible property via taxation versus the holding of real property.  In other words, by paying taxes, by having some established taxable wealth, merchants, doctors and lawyers could vote, whether or not they owned land.

That said, I just read a Cato report by T. J. Rodgers, president of Cyprus Semiconductor, titled, Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington D.C.  What is this "civic revival" that seems to be needed?  Why should people who would otherwise be productive divert their energy into an unprofitable undertaking?

Understand that I hold minor office as an elected Republican precinct delegate.  I also serve on my local community corrections advisory committee. I am engaged in my community.  I suppose if I were a person with a national sized aura, I would involved at that level.  I am cognizant of the culture of civic engagement.  However, since we are discussing this as if de novo, then I ask: Why the need for civic involvement?


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.