Part 3. Aristotle’s views on Citizenship
In the first book of his Politics, Aristotle discusses the polis (city/state) in terms of a “political community” (koin?nia politik?) as opposed to other types of communities and partnerships such as the household (oikos) and village. Aristotle states that the city-state is by nature a collective entity, a multitude of citizens. For Aristotle, the highest form of community is the polis.
In Politics III, Aristotle presents his views on political citizenship in the polis. Not surprisingly, he reserves that kind of citizenship for those directly involved in the political processes of the city or city/state.
Commentary: Today the sheer magnitude of political processes in our massive nation state seem to preclude the kinds of direct participation that Aristotle favored. If Aristotle were alive and observing the world around us, I imagine he might be rethinking some of what he originally said and wrote.
Aristotle begins his treatise with a definition of the political citizen (politês), Citizens, in the political sense of the word, were distinguished from other inhabitants, such as resident aliens and slaves who had no role in the political processes of the city/state. Aristotle did not consider children to be citizens in the political sense for the same reason. Presumably, when “senior citizens” retired from public life, Aristotle would not have considered them to be political citizens either. He would have seen them as citizens but not as political citizens, unless they once again took on an active political role. Likewise, Aristotle would not have considered most workers to be political citizens. For Aristotle political citizenship was a very simple and transparent calculation which was exceedingly flexible around its edges. Slaves were not excluded because of their enforced servitude. There could have been, and probably were, citizen slaves in ancient Greece, but, for the most part, slaves were not directly involved in political life.
Commentary: For us, Voting Rights have become synonymous with political citizenship. We have maintained many of Aristotle’s restrictions on the kind of political citizenship entailed in the right to vote through voting rights legislation. Non-voting citizenship is a birthright but voting citizenship (political citizenship) is not. For better or for worse, we have broadened voting citizenship by extending those rights to all legal residents without felony convictions. We have awarded political citizenship to most adults because of our progressive vision that most adults have a “vested interest” in the affairs of state. We could of course argue that children and resident aliens have equal “vested interest” in the affairs of state, but we have chosen to exclude them. We have done a very bad job of integrating Aristotle’s ideas of direct political involvement into today’s political realm. We really haven’t given it much thought at all. Our system is subject to attack from at least two different directions. First, since having a vested interest in America is the only criterion for political citizenship, anyone and everyone who lives here has a claim to those rights. On another front, people of a more conservative persuasion might argue that we have too many knuckleheads with voting rights already.
Proposed: Here in America, we equate Political Citizenship with the right to vote. Non-Political Citizenship should remain a birthright, but Political Citizenship should not. Rights without responsibility may seem meaningless and therefore easily abused, so Political Rights must come with responsibilities attached. I propose a voluntary year of public service and a more stringent Pledge of Allegiance as precursors to the right to Vote. I suggest we start with anyone immigrating to the United States or being born here on or after yesterday’s date, July fourth, two thousand-nineteen.
A year of public service could be wedged in between compulsory schooling and confiscatory taxation. The type of people who work in the post office will have the authority to direct the multitudes of voluntary public servants to do whatever the political class chooses.
Representation without taxation is tyranny. The US is on the verge of electing a federal government that promises taxpayer subsidized medicine, daycare, college, basic income, guaranteed government jobs, dictated higher wages and “reparations” for apparent decedents of slaves and for other ethnic groups deemed to have been economically exploited by successful people of European descent. They also promise higher taxes on incomes, businesses and payrolls. They promise a new federal wealth tax and massive government control of fuels, transportation, land use and political speech. They have already blocked border security and enforcement of immigration laws. They oppose photo IDs for voting and blocked the federal government from asking about citizenship on census forms. They are Democrats and this is democracy. Benjamin Franklin said that the Constitution gave us a republic, “if you can keep it.” A socialist US will be a disaster for the world.
Everyone benefits from basic government services such as defense, police, pollution reduction and these things can be paid for most efficiently with a simple consumption tax; everyone consumes, so everyone pays the tax and has a basis for voting. Those who choose could pay an optional poll tax to fund extraneous government services such as parks and recreation. Better yet, they could buy these services themselves. Abolish subsidies, emancipate taxpayers.
Richard:
My proposal is not for a mandatory year of public service. My proposal is for a voluntary year of public service.
In the ideal world everyone will be engaged, thoughtful, and motivated by the best interests of the whole populace. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, a lot of crackheads don’t care about anybody but themselves.
I have nothing against crackheads as long as they leave the rest of us alone. Don’t forget that I was only talking about political rights (voting rights). In my vision everyone would retain all of the non-political rights of a free society. People would be free to not volunteer. On the other hand, people who are willing to work for society should, I think, have more say in the direction that society takes.
Everybody could easily do a year of voluntary public service. Then everybody would have a vote. That, I believe, would be ideal. I served for two years, and it didn’t kill me.
However, I understand your objection, and my idea of a voluntary year of service is not my main point. I would be willing to drop the idea entirely if my main point is addressed. My main point is that America is currently doing a terrible job of defining political citizenship. If you just give it out like candy to school children, then it doesn’t have much value.
Another thing I am advocating is a more stringent pledge of allegiance for political citizenship. The current pledge is good, but it is usually given in a perfunctory manner. If people don’t agree with the pledge and sit it out, they may be ostracized. That’s not right. People should only pledge what they truly believe.
When I say the pledge, I definitely mean to express my support for America and the American way of life; but the pledge ends with the words “…with Liberty and Justice for all.” It should say “…with Liberty and Free Enterprise for those who believe in the rule of law…” and “… Equal Justice before the Law for all.” Without qualifying the word “Liberty,” we seem to be saying that all the criminals must be let out of jail.