Citizenship: an archaic practice that should be made obsolete
The issue of immigration reform is moot because citizenship is an archaic practice.
It is the last vestige of medieval governance where the individual is property of the state.
It promotes unnecessary rivalries and discrimination between people groups and forces employers to make irrational decisions with regards to hiring practices.
Citizenship is the way by which the state keeps tabs on who exists, how much they have and how much can be taken.
The state identifies the number of citizens and their income by means of a census.
It then uses this data to conduct an income tax under the auspices of paying for programs that, albeit poorly, improve the lives of the under-privileged.
In actuality, these social programs create a sort of black hole for money by hiring people to do work that ultimately produces nothing.
Similarly, when citizens reach the age of eighteen years they are required to sign up for selective service, a practice that exists solely to allow for a draft should the government ever decide to reinstate it.
And what is the draft but a way of the government telling the citizen, “You are not your own person, and you do not own your life.
Your life is ours and there is nothing you can say about it.”
Even if someone is morally opposed to conflict, they are forced to act against their conscience and fight according to the whims of those in power.
Citizenship is, then, a sacrifice of one’s ethics in favor of the state’s desires.
Governments that practice citizenship ultimately deny the belief that rights are given to people as individuals and exist apart from the state.
Q.E.D., when a government will allow a citizen the right to a fair trial by his peers, but denies to give a prisoner of war the same option, they are disregarding their allegedly-held principles that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights.
It can be said that citizenship creates a sort of arbitrary favoritism for one group over another, basically denying the humanity of the latter.
It is possible to reform our current system that implements citizenship.
The first step is to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.
Then, at the same time, eliminate the minimum wage system.
The reason why it is currently preferable for employers to hire non-citizens is because they do not have to report what they make to the government for the sake of withholding taxes.
This, then, makes their employees invisible to the state and can then be paid below minimum wage.
If the income tax is eliminated, everyone, resident and alien alike, will all have to pay taxes with no way to dodge them.
With the minimum wage gone, all potential employees are placed on an equal playing field and their job qualifications will determine if they are hired, not how easily their boss can evade the law by hiring them.
The second step to burying the policy of citizenship is to end selective service.
People should not be subject to the whims of the government, especially if those whims require them to sacrifice their life.
The government should return to a policy of volunteering for military service. Only those whose consciences allow it should have to fight.
The replacement for citizenship should be a system of residency-based programs.
If someone wants a driver’s license, it should be designated to them based on where they live.
When voting, each resident should be issued a voter ID relative to where they live.
A nation is made up of the people who choose to live there.
There should be no unnecessary hoops to jump through simply to gain the right to work and vote in a country where one already resides.
Many people desire to live in the United States because of the freedoms and opportunities we purportedly have.
They should not be turned away because they don’t want to be made property of the state.
In a truly free society, there is no citizenship. Everyone is his own man.
Comments and questions about this column can be emailed to [email protected]
Wow. As a Mercer alum, I’m embarrassed that this vapid article is the product of a current Mercer student. Let’s just have a one-world, open-borders free-for-all, right? We can live like Bohemians and sing folk songs in perfect bliss.
I was naive and liberal when I was young, too. Once you start paying taxes and earning your keep, I suspect you’ll change your tune.
Actually, I was more espousing an anarcho-capitalist model drawing from the influence of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
My good man, taxes are inherently liberal and are exactly the reason why citizenship needs to go away. Very soon. Also, be careful with your terms. If you are using liberal in it’s modernized, Barack Obama context, I am insulted! But if you use it to liken me to Frederic Bastiat or John Locke, I am honored!
Also, I suggest you actually read my article. It propagates fiscal-conservatism in a way that would cause Tea-party members to need to change their shorts.
Anarcho-capitalist? Seriously? Maybe Mercer should check your dorm for Molotov Cocktail ingredients.
Your ideas are far-fetched and untenable (like on the level of Ron Paul kookiness). Thinking outside of the box is healthy, but firebombing the box is not.
I don’t like taxes, either, but you sound like someone who would refuse to pay them and hole up in a cabin. You should probably try to avoid doing that.
Come on, be civil about this. I don’t agree with most of the ideas expressed in the article (in fact, I’m as anti-Randian as they come), but the molotov cocktail comment is completely unnecessary. I work hard to make the Cluster the high-quality, award winning paper that it is, and I hate seeing commenters lower our level of discourse by insulting others like this. Treat people with respect on the Cluster site.
Fair enough, Eric. I apologize for lowering the “level of discourse.” Taking fringe positions (e.g, anarcho-capitalism) is such a cliche for college students, though. I was just struck that it came from my alma mater’s newspaper. One can argue for constructive, realistic changes without taking an extreme, fringe position.
I’m frankly embarrassed to see a Mercer alumni make snide and condescending comments to students who are at the very least unafraid to write publicly about matters most people shun.
Our school is a place of learning and growth. I certainly don’t agree with the majority of the articles I wrote last year, but at least people were polite when pointing out the weaknesses in my argument. Your actions are reprehensible, and you need to grow up before you continue to criticize others and their cliches.
My bad, Sean. I didn’t realize that mollycoddling was an intramural sport at Mercer these days. Here’s a post-college lesson for you: If you proffer unworkable proposals backed up by nonsensical theories, prepare for them to be dismissed or criticized. That’s the way the world works.
BTW, you said you didn’t agree with the majority of articles that you wrote last year? Seriously? That sounds like a futile, extended exercise in devil’s advocacy. Why write them? Why not evaluate your true positions on a subject, write them, and defend them?
Maybe some people find that, after becoming more learned, their old ways were wrong and are rational enough to recant.
Zing.
While you’re confiscating my Molotov Cocktails, you might also want to take my Gadsden flag, Guy Fawkes mask and Ron Paul bumper stickers. Those are also pretty threatening and obviously precipitate violent revolution.
Interesting take. I consider myself to be ‘leaning right’ when it comes to voting issues, but I do think that there might be another perspective on government that you need to take into account. Wasn’t the original idea of government to pool together resources for the common good of the people (national defense, etc.). If indeed society functioned, as you wrote, “Everyone is his own man”, we’d all be busy stockpiling cannonballs and pistols as well as farming our crops, in a much more dangerous society than what we live in currently.
While Democrats want more government and Republicans want less…and perhaps I’m not really sure what the Tea Partiers want, government seems to be a necessary evil for ‘liberty and freedom’. But lets be honest, ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ and idealistic, Utopian words. Both come at a price, and that price is citizenship.
Citizenship isn’t exactly the key to freedom, and although I disagree with Mr. Tripi wholeheartedly, it is more of a yoke than a right. But republicans want less government… have you seen the “national defense” (a laughable misuse of term) spending? If you had I surely think you’d reconsider. I can actually say I hate the way social welfare programs are run in this country, and despise the democrats, but the republicans are equally lazy and expansive pundits. “Small government”… Patriot act ring a bell?
The Patriot Act was, at the time, supported by both major parties and committed gross violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
$2 Billion is spent a week on the 5 un-Constitutional, unethical, and unnecessary conflicts we are currently engaged in overseas. If Republicans want to save money, why do they perpetuate these conflicts?
I’m not calling for the abolition of government, just the abolition of citizenship. Government is necessary to protect people from crime and foreign invasion. And that’s it. All else is a misuse of power.
Residents should be taxed in order to supply the military and police with their guns.
Sales only taxing absolutely taxes poor people more than rich people, on a percentile basis. The reason is simple, the lower classes spend 90-100% of their income while the upper classes spend less than 10%. It may seem nice to the spoiled and middle class but in all reality it directly reduces the standard of living of people who right now aren’t required to pay income taxes. You can say that it isn’t fair, but John Stewart made the point that you could take everything this bottom 51% owns and it would be ALMOST as much revenue over 10 years as repealing the bush tax cuts. “Fair tax” isn’t, and don’t milk check or “poverty reimbursement stipend” bullshit me, it’s another way to cut the rich out of taxes. Anarcho-capitalize that.
Disregarding percentage of income spent, who spends more in terms of actual quantity? The rich. Therefore, the rich are still paying more. Why should the “poor” be exempt? If they can purchase, they can be taxed. Also, poor is a misnomer. In considering the living conditions of people in other parts of the world, our “poor” are significantly more well off. Also, elimination of things such as the minimum wage would allow for a reduction in prices and increase in employment.
I never said anything about the “Fair Tax”. I’m opposed to the Fair Tax because it calls for the taxing of goods sold online.
And on a more personal note, my family lived off food stamps for about 3 years. I know what it’s like to be poor. I know what it’s like to not be worth it to an employer to hire.