“You already have admitted that”
No I haven’t, and what you quote does not speak to that issue. I went back so far as the British empire, though history goes back further. There was a time when there was no organized society, and therefore nothing of which to be a citizen.
“When natural law suits you, you use it. When it doesn’t suit you, you disregard it.”
I use natural law when it suits the situation. It does not apply to everything. For instance, you don’t have a natural right to free potato chips from the feds. That demands a claim on other people, which rights do not cover except the claim we have on government to protect our rights.
“BWHAHAHAHAHAHA”
Glad I could brighten your day. But you do admit that etymologies sometimes matter, and it could important that the word “citizen” has the same root as “city.” There were no cities before people cooperated enough for their to be surplus food to support city dwellers. Perhaps, just perhaps, there was no civilization before then, and no citizens.
“The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare.”
Yes, it does. But are all communities political? You know what a “polis” is, right? That’s it: a city. Does all interpersonal association result in a city? No, there were communities and associations before there were human beings, and long, long before there were cities or government.
“Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association”
If the association of people amounts to a nation, which prior to civilization is quite a claim. I’d never claim hunter-gatherer societies were “nations.”
“Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.”
Yes, and I wonder if you know how such reciprocal obligations came about, at a level more complicated than tribal loyalty. Conquest, that’s how. Herders and pirates subdued pastural farmers by force. Over time when the plunder grew regular, the masters were rendered tribute in turn for their trouble and protection from other conquerors. That is the basis of government, everywhere and anywhere it arose in human history. That is whence our sense of organized obligation and allegiance derived.
You did have obligations to your tribe, of course. largely this took on the form of filial piety, as they were by and large your extended family. Hence, probably, the habit of referring to civilized society as a family, with the government as your father (or Big Brother), and your fellow citizens as brothers and sisters.
But when you get to the point that you need “to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation,” you are beyond the tribe. Tribes have no need of titles the way agricultural people with their cities do.
“For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government”
I see your point is that “citizen” is only one thing to call it. If civilizations had “subjects” and “inhabitants” as well, perhaps the connection between organized obligations and living in cities is tenuous. It is not. Government does not predate the subjection of farmers by herders and pirates. Government does not predate the agricultural revolution.
There was something before cities, and they had their allegiances and obligations. They had their leaders, their order, and even their version of systems of justice. But they did not have government as we know it. They did not have civilization as we mean it. They did not have cities, and they did not have citizens.
I use natural law when it suits the situation. It does not apply to everything.
I agree that natural law doesn't apply to everything. That's why man writes positive law. However, natural law most assuredly applies in this situation.
Glad I could brighten your day.
You didn't brighten my day. You showed how vapid you can be.
There were no cities before people cooperated enough for their to be surplus food to support city dwellers.
So what?! Were there no families or tribes either?
Perhaps, just perhaps, there was no civilization before then, and no citizens.
Perhaps not. What if your family disowned you or your tribe banished you?
But are all communities political?
Now or in the past?
You know what a “polis” is, right? That’s it: a city.
Only if you spoke Greek.
Tribes have no need of titles the way agricultural people with their cities do.
Yeah, right! Tell the chief and the shaman that their title meant nothing. And be sure and tell the wise women that your wife can have that child on her own.
You think you're wise and yet you don't allow basic common sense to enter your thinking. That makes you a fool.