By MamaLiberty
Citizen… a word much used and abused. I suspect few people understand the classic meaning of the term. Far too many people who write about the current state of affairs in the world, even most of those who profess to want individual liberty, demonstrate poor understanding of it.
So, here it is:
Citizen
noun
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien ).
2. an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
If you are a “citizen,” you belong to the government of the territory where you live and work. You “owe” them both obedience and whatever part of your life or property they decide to take from you. Generally speaking, you have little or no recourse. If you refuse to surrender your freedom or property long enough, they will see to it you spend your life in a cage… or are killed.
And no, you can’t “vote” to change any of that. You and your neighbors might be able to influence one of the rulers, or vote to tinker with the amounts and peripheral provisions of the government dictates, but you will never be offered an opportunity to opt out, to say “no thanks,” and retain both your freedom and property by agreeing not to ask for or obtain any of their supposed “privileges or franchises.”
In other words, actual freedom – being left alone to trade or associate as you please, etc., as long as you do not harm others – is simply not an option anywhere.
Every human being is born with full authority over their own body and life. Parents are the natural guardians of this authority until the individual is able or willing to exercise it for him/herself. We may get into a long discussion over when that point is reached, but a review of a teen’s usual transition from child to adult is informative.
The fact that many do not exercise good judgment – then or afterwards – does nothing to negate the fact that they own their lives. Those who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions and choices are ideal “citizens,” because the state pretends to dictate the terms of life, and offer both “safety” and reward for obedience. And, all too often, sets things up so that the individual can be punished for disobedience at the same time they are relieved of any personal responsibility. How neat is that?
So, both the “citizen” and the one who rejects all aspects of citizenship are punished, with prejudice and vigor, for select failures to obey, and many are actually enabled, even encouraged, to harm those around them. The only real crime, it seems, is disobedience to the state without the special status being granted.
So, where does government obtain the authority to wield the power to accomplish all this? From those who are willing to be “citizens” and believe that government, religious leaders or anyone else has any legitimate authority to control their lives and property against their will.
Sounds an awful like plain old slavery to me.
I am not a willing “citizen” of any territory or political entity. I own my body and my life, and am the only one responsible for that life and my safety. I want neither protection nor benefits from any non-voluntary government and reject all claims they make to my life or property. And yes, I am ultimately forced to comply (not agree) to many of these things at the point of a gun.
I only want to be left alone to live in voluntary association, cooperation and mutual aid with my neighbors.
What about you? Do you still want to be a “citizen?”
The Price of Liberty 
I would suggest those definitions of citizen also imply somehow that it is a two way street. Citizen owes allegiance in return for something. Citizens are no longer protected by government and are often preyed upon by that government. Privilidges and Franchise (what ever those might really be) are only for those that can toe the local party line and pony up money to secure them.
The only way I see citizenship as being a two way street is the likely-hood of a citizen being run over from the right and left.
LikeLike
Only a “two way street” if an individual wants to take the chance that the state will honor the deal. Since the entire history of the world would indicate that this is rare to nonexistent, I’ll pass. 🙂
The only reason the state does anything to benefit an individual (and “benefit” needs serious definition), is when that state or its representative gains more power in the exchange. The individual may well be unaware of giving away power to the state, but it is there somehow. The state and all who worship/love it have no other real motive.
And yes, your analogy of crossing the road is right on. You will get hit from one direction or another, or both.
LikeLike
OK – When I go to vote, I declare that I am a citizen. When I get a passport I declare I am a citizen. Would you suggest that I scrap those items??
Do you know of anything else to which I volunteer that has a citizen clause in it?
What has been bothering me is a tax case called Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/47/case.html
A short case, but the implications are very long. Any comments from you or anyone?
bob minarik – rochester indiana
LikeLike
The question is: who owns your life? Do you give anyone any authority over you, to control your actions and choices? Do you “obey” the rulers because you believe they have that authority, or because you know they will hurt you, maybe kill you if you disobey long enough?
Why give away your liberty? Why do you believe that any government (or anyone else) has any authority to steal what you produce, or indoctrinate your children with slave talk? Why would you believe that any “tax” was anything but theft?
Those are two totally different things. Only you know what is in your heart and mind, and only you know what price you are willing to pay to be free. Some trapped animals will chew off their own leg to get away. And some just die.
LikeLike
One of my early blog posts was “Don’t call me a ‘citizen’“.
It seems insulting to me, still.
LikeLike
I find it annoying when someone attempts to label me that way, as if I had no other option. This old gray mare can be dragged to the water, but there isn’t anything that can make me drink willingly.
LikeLike
Well argued. What, I wonder, shall we call ourselves? Something more than a generic term, like “human” or “person”, something which denotes our self-sovereignty but is not hyphenated. “Individual” comes close, perhaps.
LikeLike
I call myself a self owner often. I’ve used the term “sovereign individual” often. Unfortunately, too few people understand these, and aren’t willing to stretch their imagination enough to learn what they mean. More and more, I find I just don’t need a label… I am who I am, and people can take it or leave it. 🙂
And, by the way, “sovereign” doesn’t mean that others can’t or won’t impact our lives, or even gain some control by force. The kings of old were considered “sovereign,” but they still wound up dead at the hands of others quite often. They – and too many others – assumed that their sovereignty included the lives and productivity of everyone else within their territory…. just as the present governments around the world now claim.
Real sovereignty simply means that each human has the only legitimate authority over their own lives and property. If each person understood that, there would not be nearly so many willing to let others control them.
LikeLike
Pingback: RRND - 04/08/15 -
Well stated and my thoughts also.
LikeLike
Thanks, my friend. I get so weary of all the folks who think they want freedom… when all they really want to do is marginally control those they have empowered to control them… As long as they are “allowed” to do this or that, the rest doesn’t seem to matter a whole lot. sigh
LikeLike