I disagree. In the OP’s home country society for instance you have citizens who have rights reduced (Peers, the insane, members of the armed forces, Juveniles) those who have additional rights (money lenders, landlords, married women, members of parliament, persons in loco parentis).
The mere fact of having different classifications is on its own not improper. Those classifications have to have a reasonable basis, but merely have different types of citizenship is on its own not wrong.
One man’s reasonability is another man’s violation.
The simpler any classification is, the better, like sticking to juveniles and adults.
What about the mentally ill? Or those in a position of authority? Or those who are in a policy role?
I think they should be allowed to vote and yes, even run for office(The people would of course reject them, but the right should still remain).
In the Soviet Union, critics of the regime were carted off to mental institutions, and it is an unnecessary potential slippery slope to have.
I dunno about that - I can picture a democracy with mandatory military or alternative service (Austria, Denmark, Finland, etc.) with the small wrinkle that one cannot vote until it is complete, with the small additional wrinkle that one can put off service (and voting) indefinitely.
I daresay this could work - most of the population will do service, but some will simply choose not to. This won’t automatically lead to better governance, though.
We did this in another thread recently. I proposed a rewards system for citizens who go the extra mile to stay out of trouble. I’m just going to re post it here.
Those in a position of authority or in a policy role should not have rights any different from anyone else.
So you are against immunity and indemnity for works done in good faith? Or anyone of a dozen privileges that offices bring, which exceed that of citizens?
I think this is just a horrible idea. In my view, the purpose of government is to provide some set of basic protections and services that are useful or necessary to virtually everyone and either cannot or should not be provided by a more localized government or private industry. Yes, our society has different classes of citizens, definied by socioeconomic status, occupation, location, religion, whatever, why should the government get in the business of defining additional classes?
That said, there are some government defined classes related to age, such that those below 18 cannot vote, and those above a certain age are eligible to various offices and eventually other benefits. As for as a minimum age to vote, short of some less arbitrary measurement, we have to have a line somewhere and that’s where society has placed it. I do think all the other age restictions should be at the same age though. If you’re old enough to vote, why can’t you run for any office you can vote for? Let society decide based on your merit if you should be a senator. Hell, could any 19 year old actually get any significant votes anyway?
The only other reduced rights are for criminals, but that’s a case where people have broken societies rules, so it makes sense to reduce the benefits that they receive from society, particularly as it comes to deciding who should lead and what the rules should be.
I don’t like a reward system because while it sounds like it encourages people to do good, it just creates corruption because those with status of other means could more easily buy their way out of trouble or take advantage of other perks. It sort of defeats the purpose of a democratic government in my view.
Just a note regarding “getting arrested” as being a major benchmark in determining citizenship status: what about getting arrested as part of a nonviolent civil-disobedience protest to bring about social change? Under your plan, for example, somebody like Martin Luther King would never get past basic citizen status.
For that matter, what about police who go out of their way to arrest minorities on specious grounds? Could the publicly drunk children of a powerful politician merely get “detained” to avoid antagonizing their parent?
Are you talking about the fact that a judge may sentence someone to death without being charged with murder? Those aren’t additional rights, nor do they constitute a higher class of citizenship. They are simply functions of office.
We have always separated citizens into deserving and undeserving categories. Felons cannot vote in some states for the rest of their lives. People under 18 cannot vote. While then limit on age doesn’t seem troublesome because most people eventually reach 18 but the felony issue is a bit tougher when you have racial disparities in felony convictions and soemtimes the felony convictions is a result of property damage caused during the exercise of political speech (burning abortion clinics or freeing all the animals from an animal testing laboratory).
I don’t have a problem with things like the DREAM ACT which allows people who would otherwise have to wait several years for citizenship to gain it immediately upon serving a tour of duty.
Good point, I hadn’t thought that far. I imagine that we would have to go through the code and determine what would qualify and what would not.
Can you unpack this? Say we lived in a system where one had to undertake service (military or otherwise) to be a voting citizen, how would “other means” impact on that? If you haven’t done the service, you can’t buy it. In fact in Heinlein’s novel the protagonist’s family were wealthy, but none of them were citizens because they didn’t want to do service.
It’s been mentioned that one potential problem with this is that those who find themselves in power will find some way to tweak the rules and/or their interpretation to keep themselves in power.
What about the opposite situation, where people who have a low citizenship level will search for loopholes? E.g. suppose we say that you get 0.01 citizenship point for each college credit you have that does not lead to a degree, figuring that we’ll give people who didn’t get that degree some credit so as to make the effort not in vain. The loophole will be that, if you have the time, you can (today) go to your local community college and just rack up hundreds of miscellaneous, fairly easy credits. Basketball? Sure, 2 credits! Basket weaving? 2 credits! Flower appreciation? 1 credit! The last time I checked, my local community college did offer a flower appreciation course, and I believe it was a credit course. Just keep taking extracurricular courses and make sure you take the “Intro to” everything. There’s 200 credits that won’t ever get you a degree, but that’s 2 whole citizenship points!
What you’re essentially saying is “here is bad way to implement this idea” as if that’s the way it would automatically happen. I also don’t buy the “once in power those who have it will make sure they have it all and keep it” argument. If this trend were so then all societies would be moving inexorably to total dictatorship/oligarchy and that’s simply not true. If a society wanted to sit down and redesign itself to have a varied citizenship system, part of that process would be to ensure that it couldn’t be hijacked and abused.
To cite the Roman system again, beyond their citizenship system they had classes too (the patricians and plebians) which sort of but doesn’t exactly equate to aristocracy and commoners. The plebs, in their efforts to ensure they didn’t constantly get shafted by the patricians, several times in Rome’s history simply “quit the city”, effectively going on strike and leaving the tiny class of aristocrats with no-one to run. Each time this led to the breaking of the deadlock in whatever the dispute was - drastic measure, sure, but effective.
I’m not suggesting that a system would necessitate that level of disobedience or revolution or anything like that, but you CAN make a system representative and have differing levels of citizenship without it by necessity turning into an oppressive regime.
Great. We can finally solve the problem of people from the “local ghetto” being waaaaaay too represented in the political process.
Uhh…
FWIW, I think you might find quite a few service members in your “local ghetto.”
We already have a system where people with money and education wield political influence far out of proportion to their numbers, why enhance that any further?!
The British ghetto (my ghetto, if you will) is full of white, working class people, and I can assure you no-one there is doing any kind of service except the community sort imposed on them by a court as part of sentencing.
Cite? I volunteer and the lower classes are well definitely represented among our ranks. Heck, I find that the working poor are often more generous when it comes to giving to charity events and things like that. Maybe poor people are different in the UK but I rather doubt it.
I find the tiered idea you’ve forwarded highly objectionable. Be arrested for any reason, not convicted at trial mind you, lose privileged status? Apply for any kind of financial aid (unemployment, perhaps) and lose privileged status? Privileged status gives you exemption points for crimes?! Yikes.