Replies

Maybe it's the streak of anarchist in me that makes me shiver over oaths of citizenship and any form of national ID.

I myself have not advocated oaths of citizenship, or national ID cards.

I have however, advocated voluntary confederations for the mutual defense for rights (entered into by voluntary contract upon reaching the age of majority).

The only moral means of interaction among men is by mutual consent. In order for any governmental structure to be morally legitimate, it must be consented to (and funded) voluntarily by all it's participants. One potential method by which a structure might be administered, would be to afford each potential participant the opportunity to enter into voluntary constitutional contract (promising to make himself available for defense, jury duty, and even funding for example) upon reaching the age of majority. In exchange, he might recieve the voting franchise.

There would remain many details to work out, but I think this basic framework is the ONLY morally valid method by which men might be governed.

afford each potential participant the opportunity to enter into voluntary constitutional contract (promising to make himself available for defense, jury duty, and even funding for example) upon reaching the age of majority. In exchange, he might recieve the voting franchise.

This is exactly what I remember you advocating; an "oath of citizenship" is what in my mind describes it, but the choice of expression is mine.

The thing with a system like that is, there has to be very strong protections against a government overstepping its authority. Such that has happened under the Constitution.

Either that or, you must allow someone who has done whatever to pledge his support to withdraw it if the government fails to live up to its end of the bargin.

I see the present Constitution as just such a system, short of a formal declaration of support. The government has failed to live up to its end of the bargin and it's time to either change it, or withdraw from it.

I, personally, feel that many have already done that. In my eyes, that is the reason there are over 100 million eligible voters out there who don't participate. The only thing is, the government will not allow them to withdraw and it forces them to continue to support it whether they want to or not.

How to make a change such as you suggest is the question of the day, I guess. It would almost take a completely new government from the top down to make that kind of change, along with some major changes to the Constitution, if not a new constitution.

Such a system seems like it could be workable, but there would have to be some very strong protections for anyone who chooses to participate and for those who choose not to participate, as well.