earned citizenship

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

earned citizenship

Post by Advocate »

One of the state's central duties is to ensure only those who are sufficiently prepared are allowed to participate in society in ways that significantly effect others. That means business owners and maids just as much as public servants. All citizens must understand the civic process, how to proceed through it, most importantly how to challenge it successfully, and how to opt out if the system isn't right for you.

bonus: A good citizen is not a compliant one, the way the state is set up today. A good citizen challenges the state when it's obviously wrong and when it's probably wrong if they have the time. A good citizen does not vote in a corrupt system. Participation = perpetuation.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: earned citizenship

Post by henry quirk »

A man belongs to himself.

His life, liberty, and property are his.

His life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

There, a charter for a civilized nation. Print up post cards, distribute to everyone, let folks be as they organize themselves accordingly.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: earned citizenship

Post by commonsense »

Advocate wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:32 pm One of the state's central duties is to ensure only those who are sufficiently prepared are allowed to participate in society in ways that significantly effect others. That means business owners and maids just as much as public servants. All citizens must understand the civic process, how to proceed through it, most importantly how to challenge it successfully, and how to opt out if the system isn't right for you.

bonus: A good citizen is not a compliant one, the way the state is set up today. A good citizen challenges the state when it's obviously wrong and when it's probably wrong if they have the time. A good citizen does not vote in a corrupt system. Participation = perpetuation.
This must be a should rather than an is. But how could we possibly ever make this into an is, when the overwhelming majority of our population is granted citizenship by virtue of location of birth? Even to say that citizenship is partially limited until a person reaches voting age is still problematic, because a person is free of limitations upon reaching a certain age, whether ready or not.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: earned citizenship

Post by Advocate »

commonsense wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:00 pm
Advocate wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:32 pm One of the state's central duties is to ensure only those who are sufficiently prepared are allowed to participate in society in ways that significantly effect others. That means business owners and maids just as much as public servants. All citizens must understand the civic process, how to proceed through it, most importantly how to challenge it successfully, and how to opt out if the system isn't right for you.

bonus: A good citizen is not a compliant one, the way the state is set up today. A good citizen challenges the state when it's obviously wrong and when it's probably wrong if they have the time. A good citizen does not vote in a corrupt system. Participation = perpetuation.
This must be a should rather than an is. But how could we possibly ever make this into an is, when the overwhelming majority of our population is granted citizenship by virtue of location of birth? Even to say that citizenship is partially limited until a person reaches voting age is still problematic, because a person is free of limitations upon reaching a certain age, whether ready or not.
I wasn't expecting an actual response with actual points in it.. This truly is the unicorn of the Philosophy Now Forums! Thanks.

Do you concur that if the social contract isn't explicit and voluntary, it's an excuse for a slave state/feudalism/etc.?

The first step would be to spell out the rights and duties of citizenship. There are millions of words written about this but even the most official ones are completely open to interpretation and contradict each other in seriously existential ways. On the whole, the US govt. (the only one i'm competent to judge) is completely hypocritical. To say we need a valid social contract is more on the wish/dream side of things than the practical application side, but it's important to acknowledge the direction we want to go in before we can start moving.

Let me restate it this way:
IF citizenship is meaningful as a foundation for the rest of society and,
IF a person has a reasonable ability to understand and participate in society and,
IF it is possible to reasonably test that ability
THEN it is imperative that we grant citizenship based on that test rather than any more arbitrary method

I believe the premises all hold up. More than that, if it is Not possible to test, we need to get on it right away, because it's still the only way to really know if someone is being granted power by merit. But i digress.

There is a class of people who don't particularly care about how things work as long as they work. I call them be-ers (Morlock). They require a completely different sort of integration with the rest of society than those who want to understand and manipulate it for the good of all (do-ers, Eloi). If simple citizenship isn't sufficient to manage that difference, perhaps there should be multiple kinds/levels of citizenship with increasing voting rights. I believe we should all be given 100 votes to distribute at will, to enable meaningful bespoke application of them. A person could pass a basic civics test and be given 10 votes, then granted more as their knowledge progresses, or whatever.

Let me just dispense with the "who gets to decide" argument before it's raised. That argument applies to ALL forms of political ideology and isn't particularly relevant here.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: earned citizenship

Post by commonsense »

I agree with all of the above with the exception of having levels of citizenship and votes.

I understand that there would be degrees of citizenship, as it were, based on merit. Is my understanding close enough to on point for purposes of discussion?

If so, while there is merit in meritocracy in some situations, in the case of citizenship this would create a whole class of disenfranchised individuals.

Judging from the history of US residents of the South who were not registered to vote prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s, there would be tremendous social disparity and eventual unrest of some significance.

This hypothetical system of earned citizenship would also mean that more votes for more knowledge brings the problem of reliable and fair tests.

Should the test target recall of memorized facts? Should there be greater emphasis on critical thinking?

Who would write the test questions and answers? Who would grade the tests when completed?

Would the tests have cutoff scores for attaining more votes or would the tests be graded on a bell shaped curve?

Would there be tests of increasing difficulty as the number of allotted votes increases or would the number of votes increase with higher scores on a single test?

All and all, wouldn’t this form of meritocracy just shift the privileged class from the wealthiest people to the best test-takers?

Based on my understanding of a system of earned citizenship, there would need to be a way of surmounting the setbacks suggested by my questions.

Can you help with any of these challenges?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: earned citizenship

Post by Advocate »

>I agree with all of the above with the exception of having levels of citizenship and votes.

Eh? I don't understand what parts are left after you take that out. The levels thing was basically the point.

-------->
I understand that there would be degrees of citizenship, as it were, based on merit. Is my understanding close enough to on point for purposes of discussion?

If so, while there is merit in meritocracy in some situations, in the case of citizenship this would create a whole class of disenfranchised individuals.

Judging from the history of US residents of the South who were not registered to vote prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s, there would be tremendous social disparity and eventual unrest of some significance.

This hypothetical system of earned citizenship would also mean that more votes for more knowledge brings the problem of reliable and fair tests.

Should the test target recall of memorized facts? Should there be greater emphasis on critical thinking?

Who would write the test questions and answers? Who would grade the tests when completed?

Would the tests have cutoff scores for attaining more votes or would the tests be graded on a bell shaped curve?

Would there be tests of increasing difficulty as the number of allotted votes increases or would the number of votes increase with higher scores on a single test?

All and all, wouldn’t this form of meritocracy just shift the privileged class from the wealthiest people to the best test-takers?

Based on my understanding of a system of earned citizenship, there would need to be a way of surmounting the setbacks suggested by my questions.

Can you help with any of these challenges?
<--------

I'm going to go with the best philosophical answer of all time - yes and no.

Everything you're saying is relevant but its relevant to All political ideologies, not this one in particular. It's basically different versions of "who gets to decide?". I was going to suggest moving all that to a different topic since it's more universal, but there is also a bespoke answer. So here goes...

Degrees of citizenship according to merit - yes. It seems obvious that everyone isn't capable of the same level of participation, even if they have the same level of knowledge and an equivalent ability to use it effectively. There are three prerequisites for good leadership, short of luck, none of which is tested for at the moment; knowledge, intelligence, and conscientiousness - all presumably above average.

At this point (using the US as my example), almost everyone is Already disenfranchised, and the greatest part of why is that we are Not in a meritocracy. If merit was even a nominal criteria it could be judged according to it's own merits, but the system we have is all about creating apparent value, apparent dangers, and apparent solutions. Any form of meritocracy would be better than using criteria that have no correlation at all with goodness, leadership ability, or practical success.

There will be a social disparity in any system. The trick is to find the one where the disparity is reasonable and harms as few as possible to get the job done. We cannot all be equal in any sense, what matters is equality of opportunity, and that doesn't mean the same thing for an ignorant person as a smart one or an intelligent person as for a normal one. Not everyone wants to be political. Not everyone can be political. To require that those people be granted equal access to a process that effects everyone is crazy.

The problem of reliable and fair tests is universal. What's being tested for now is the ability to convince the public that you don't suck, while the real criteria are only known to insiders - those who choose the delegates in the first place. That's hardly appropriate or justifiable criteria for a leadership position. The majority don't know what's good or what they want anyway, and the political process is all about convincing them without actual information. All the politicians have statistics and they're all full of shit. You can't get to a reasonably high position in the current system if you're not ready, willing, and able to sell out completely. There are plenty of people who are and "they", up there, don't want anyone rocking the boat. But there's a deeper layer to that. If you're not fully integrated and compliant in the current system you are Guaranteed not to have a chance in Any political battle of relevance. You won't get elected to city council. You won't be allowed to be a boy scout leader. You won't be asked to carry the collection plate at church.

Tests, tests, tests, testity tests. Yes, that's definitely a distinct and separate topic. My blanket answer is that any attempt at merit is better than what we have now, which is anti-intellectual shenanigans. There are ways to test for these things, but what matters more is that if it's so important (and the contention here is that it is foundationally important) ,then we MUST test for it, even if our tests start out not being good enough. They can improve. This is the same problem with age of consent. If sex is such a big deal than it's critical that we rely on actual evidence of someone's actual ability to consent, not just blanket ban certain actions at the unnecessary expense of reasonable people's legitimate freedom.

A randomly selected philosophy student could probably create a vastly better system than the one we have now. There's no reason to believe experts can't work out a valid test. We already have valid tests for civic knowledge and intelligence. All that remains is to ensure they are ready, willing, and able to act on the behalf of All their constituents. The only reason we're not doing so already is that They don't want a meritocracy. They'd be excluded.

One last thought. Shifting the privileged class from the wealthy to good test-takers would be one of the best things that ever happened to this country. Shifting the privileged class from the wealthy to people with extra toes on their left foot would be one of the best things that ever happened to this country.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: earned citizenship

Post by commonsense »

Re your previous post: I essentially agreed with such things as your explicit premises and their conclusion, that rights and duties of citizenship should be spelled out, that there are be-ers and do-ers. I agreed with every statement as far as logical validity is concerned. I agreed with every word except for the ones directly citing levels of citizenship and levels of allocated votes.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: earned citizenship

Post by Advocate »

commonsense wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:47 pm Re your previous post: I essentially agreed with such things as your explicit premises and their conclusion, ie logically sound. I agreed with every statement as far as logical validity is concerned. I agreed with every word except for the ones directly citing levels of citizenship and levels of allocated votes.
OK, the very specific specifics... got it. They're a starting point, as i see it. I like the 100 votes thing in particular after long thought about its implications...

Give grandma 10 votes, because you respect her opinion, give the NRA 85 votes because you own a gun, give anti-gun activists 5 because you want to be sure the NRA stays on their toes... or whatever. There is missing context to that particular idea though because i mean it in an advisory capacity on issues, not voting as it's normally understood - for a person, although it should work there too, i think.

The inherently moral worth and dignity of all persons cannot be a universal default. Babies may be granted an exception because we can't know how they'll turn out but some people do not have the same moral worth as others later on, clearly. Likewise for dignity, whether or not it's their "fault" or circumstantial. Treating people as equal is only good when they ARE equal. Equal in worth? Not anywhere on this planet. Particulars aside, all i really ask is a basic respect for truth. Is someone capable of making decisions that effect others in a reasonable way. Not all people are.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: earned citizenship

Post by commonsense »

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm Everything you're saying is relevant but its relevant to All political ideologies, not this one in particular. It's basically different versions of "who gets to decide?". I was going to suggest moving all that to a different topic since it's more universal, but there is also a bespoke answer. So here goes...

If what I said is relevant to all ideologies then it’s relevant to any one of them, including the one you’ve expressed here. And earned citizenship, ie. this thread, is intimately tied to who gets to decide, because who gets to decide is precisely the ones who have successfully earned their citizenship.

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm Degrees of citizenship according to merit - yes. It seems obvious that everyone isn't capable of the same level of participation, even if they have the same level of knowledge and an equivalent ability to use it effectively. There are three prerequisites for good leadership, short of luck, none of which is tested for at the moment; knowledge, intelligence, and conscientiousness - all presumably above average.

Everything you say, and you know this, is obviously antithetical to the ideas of one-person-one-vote and the-majority-rules. It’s a moral imperative that everyone who is a self be respected as a self. That means everyone, or at least every adult, gets to vote. And the decision that gets made will be the choice of the majority, because otherwise there would be diminished respect for some of the individual selfs.


Leadership is not in question here except to determine who gets to decide who their leaders will be. That means that the qualities of leadership are those qualities preferred by the majority.

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm At this point (using the US as my example), almost everyone is Already disenfranchised, and the greatest part of why is that we are Not in a meritocracy. If merit was even a nominal criteria it could be judged according to it's own merits, but the system we have is all about creating apparent value, apparent dangers, and apparent solutions. Any form of meritocracy would be better than using criteria that have no correlation at all with goodness, leadership ability, or practical success.

The problem is not whether or not criteria correspond to goodness, but whether or not criteria represent what the majority wants. It is a matter of recognizing each individual as a respected self.

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm There will be a social disparity in any system. The trick is to find the one where the disparity is reasonable and harms as few as possible to get the job done. We cannot all be equal in any sense, what matters is equality of opportunity, and that doesn't mean the same thing for an ignorant person as a smart one or an intelligent person as for a normal one. Not everyone wants to be political. Not everyone can be political. To require that those people be granted equal access to a process that effects everyone is crazy.

Yes, equality of opportunity matters, and everyone should have the opportunity to vote. It isn’t crazy, it’s a moral duty to respect each individual human.

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm The problem of reliable and fair tests is universal. What's being tested for now is the ability to convince the public that you don't suck, while the real criteria are only known to insiders - those who choose the delegates in the first place. That's hardly appropriate or justifiable criteria for a leadership position. The majority don't know what's good or what they want anyway, and the political process is all about convincing them without actual information. All the politicians have statistics and they're all full of shit. You can't get to a reasonably high position in the current system if you're not ready, willing, and able to sell out completely. There are plenty of people who are and "they", up there, don't want anyone rocking the boat. But there's a deeper layer to that. If you're not fully integrated and compliant in the current system you are Guaranteed not to have a chance in Any political battle of relevance. You won't get elected to city council. You won't be allowed to be a boy scout leader. You won't be asked to carry the collection plate at church.
What qualifies one for a position of trust is to be determined by all those who get to decide, I.e. by everyone.
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm Tests, tests, tests, testity tests. Yes, that's definitely a distinct and separate topic. My blanket answer is that any attempt at merit is better than what we have now, which is anti-intellectual shenanigans. There are ways to test for these things, but what matters more is that if it's so important (and the contention here is that it is foundationally important) ,then we MUST test for it, even if our tests start out not being good enough. They can improve. This is the same problem with age of consent. If sex is such a big deal than it's critical that we rely on actual evidence of someone's actual ability to consent, not just blanket ban certain actions at the unnecessary expense of reasonable people's legitimate freedom.
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm A randomly selected philosophy student could probably create a vastly better system than the one we have now. There's no reason to believe experts can't work out a valid test. We already have valid tests for civic knowledge and intelligence. All that remains is to ensure they are ready, willing, and able to act on the behalf of All their constituents. The only reason we're not doing so already is that They don't want a meritocracy. They'd be excluded.
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm One last thought. Shifting the privileged class from the wealthy to good test-takers would be one of the best things that ever happened to this country. Shifting the privileged class from the wealthy to people with extra toes on their left foot would be one of the best things that ever happened to this country.
Last edited by commonsense on Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: earned citizenship

Post by Advocate »

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm Tests, tests, tests, testity tests. Yes, that's definitely a distinct and separate topic. My blanket answer is that any attempt at merit is better than what we have now, which is anti-intellectual shenanigans. There are ways to test for these things, but what matters more is that if it's so important (and the contention here is that it is foundationally important) ,then we MUST test for it, even if our tests start out not being good enough. They can improve. This is the same problem with age of consent. If sex is such a big deal than it's critical that we rely on actual evidence of someone's actual ability to consent, not just blanket ban certain actions at the unnecessary expense of reasonable people's legitimate freedom.
The age of consent thing works both ways, of course. There are some people who are Never ready for sex, or personal responsibility for that matter. And that's explicitly why we have the idea of guardianship.. but consent is a whole topic...
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: earned citizenship

Post by henry quirk »

I wasn't expecting an actual response with actual points in it..

thanks for nuthin', guy


The inherently moral worth and dignity of all persons cannot be a universal default.

mebbe not, but even the lowest scumbag belongs to himself, is a person: there's your universal default (ownness)

'course, that loops back to my post above which didn't cut the mustard... :thumbsdown:
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: earned citizenship

Post by Advocate »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:51 am I wasn't expecting an actual response with actual points in it..

thanks for nuthin', guy


The inherently moral worth and dignity of all persons cannot be a universal default.

mebbe not, but even the lowest scumbag belongs to himself, is a person: there's your universal default (ownness)

'course, that loops back to my post above which didn't cut the mustard... :thumbsdown:
I can't concur that mere existence has value. People's desired ends typically require some kind of integration, so one's own-ness is normally a balance of socially desirable and necessary compromises.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: earned citizenship

Post by henry quirk »

I can't concur that mere existence has value.

I didn't say diddly about mere existence.

I'm talkin' about personhood.


People's desired ends typically require some kind of integration, so one's own-ness is normally a balance of socially desirable and necessary compromises.

No. Ownness: being one's own, as a fact, all the time, alone or in a crowd, walkin' down the sidewalk or locked in a cage.

Compromises aren't part of the mix.

Cooperation & competition are surely involved in a man meetin' his needs, satisfyin' his wants, but that has nuthin' to with a man belonging to himself, his personhood.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: earned citizenship

Post by gaffo »

Advocate wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:32 pm One of the state's central duties is to ensure only those who are sufficiently prepared are allowed to participate in society

to rephrase here: yes the State's Goal is to secure power. the less "citizens" know and the less there are "citizens" the better.

and why we had from 1789 - 1865, only "citizens" that were white (allowing a few freed blacks too), male, and property owners (you had to be all three of those - not any one of) to vote.

---------

The duty of The People - be they "citizens" or not, is to be informed and to demand that thier government represents them and rules them by the people's consent, and when it no longer, to overthrow said government and put on one with will do so..repeat (revolt/revolution) as many times as needed to force a formation of a government that governs by the consent of the governed.

Advocate wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:32 pm bonus: A good citizen is not a compliant one, the way the state is set up today.
per government's view a good citizen is indeed a sheep (and why i loath vore dire - and love jury nulification) - of course governments love sheep to serves on juries and hate jurors that think for themselves and esp any that rule via jury nulification.

Advocate wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:32 pm A good citizen challenges the state when it's obviously wrong and when it's probably wrong if they have the time. A good citizen does not vote in a corrupt system. Participation = perpetuation.

yes, but such a citizen is a bad citizen in the government's eye.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: earned citizenship

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:45 pm A man belongs to himself.

His life, liberty, and property are his.

His life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

There, a charter for a civilized nation. Print up post cards, distribute to everyone, let folks be as they organize themselves accordingly.
yep
Post Reply