The True Loss of Citizenship

Citizenship and Responsibility (An Extremist View that Logically Makes Sense to me)

There exists a confusion about the Rights afforded by the Constitution.  An interesting position found within our Constitution is that if an individual does not adhere to the "major" laws of the state or the federal government and is found guilty, they are convicted of a felony.  If found guilty...they lose the rights of citizenship.  There is an interesting logic...if a person is found guilty of a felony...they are guilty of treason...

With that conviction comes the loss of the rights of a citizen, such as the right to gun ownership, or the right to vote.  In essence, an individual who can not conform to the laws have abdicated their citizenship...ALL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN.

Over time (perhaps through the influence of situational ethics) the penalties related have been diluted.

Application of Constitutional law...in all honesty...should be that if an individual is felonious, they have intentionally abdicated their citizenship through the commission of a a serious crime against society, unless vindicated...It would be cool to deport them, but that is pawning off "bad-blood" on another country. This is not the point

I believe that the 21st century society needs to go back to basic Constitutional interpretation, in relation to felons (those who by that basic definition, have given up their citizenship) and we (as a society) continue to pay the price for their existence in our society (which should be minimized, because they guests (however unwelcome) and should no longer be afforded any rights as a citizens.

One such thing is the "right" to a speedy trial."  This is afforded to all law-abiding citizens (until convicted), but a felon no longer deserves such a "right."

Another is that a felon (who is no longer a citizen)  has given up his or her "right to a fair trial"...and citizen-like treatment under out law.  A felon should be treated as guilty until proven innocent...putting the burden of evidence upon the felon rather than the government...(thus saving the taxpayer's money for justice to citizens).

Think about a felon being "guilty until they prove that they are innocent"...or...that they get a trial when "we" have time!

Turning the tables and focusing on the responsibilities and rights related to citizenship and the cost related to not fulfilling those responsibilities would have many good downstream effects!

I have to think more about this...but the constitutional perspective is sound...we have simply gotten soft on our interpretation...we may need to go to its full intent to extract all of the brilliance of it...and its creators!

US citizenship, or citizenship for that matter is a membership...and a commitment to abiding by the laws of the society.  It is an exclusive club...with a wide open membership...citizens are obligated by the rules of membership...the government is obligated to uphold those laws in return...

There are more ramifications related to taking this stance...we'll discuss them in the next submission...



   

The 21st Century Philosopher - A Reductionist?

In a previous submission...we discussed the basic political philosophy of our government and how that relates to the 21st century philosopher.  There is a difficult balance that must be sought with social responsibility and individual rights and freedoms.

The guiding principal for the individual is ethics and morality...it makes everyone a "church."

This makes the goal of the separation of church and state rather difficult...unless there is a realization that an individual has a right to be a "church" (which by my definition is an adherent to a certain set of ethical and moral standards)...has no right to stand in judgement of any other "church" (individual). 

The right of and to judgement lies only in the realm of God (an external higher standard, not necessarily a higher being).  That is why..."In God we trust..."

The 21st Century philosopher does not have to discover this concept...simply advocate it in a voice that can be heard...our founding fathers have already embedded this within our Constitution...

This drives equality...it eliminates prejudice...quells discrimination...and on and on!

You may pose..."The United States...is only one of nearly 200 nations...why should we believe that we have the "better" position?"

The US was and continues to be the "Grand Experiment."

It is not that we are better...but have a foundational philosophy that is dynamic and capable of supporting human rights...

Let the others watch and learn...

The 21st Century philosopher does not have to be American...but should at least be an adherent of this type of philosophy (at minimum) or a better one...

******************************

One of the characteristics of the 21st century is its complexity...

This is not an epiphany...just an observation...

Complexity often is an opiate and by its very nature it draws people further from basic truths...

Although people are searching for and refining truth...it seems to be growing at a geometrical rate....

As truths are discovered...they are often refined and guarded with "exclusions and exceptions."

Rather than creating truths with qualifiers...we should be working towards refinement in the other direction..that is searching for the basic elements and universal applications.  Truth should be getting more  simple...not more complex...

In a way...the 21st Century philosopher should be chasing the basics...rather than trying to amass the world's knowledge!

***********************************

I have yet to find a philosopher in the century that can express the answers with a beauty and elegance similar to the Theory of Relativity...

If answers of this brilliance and universally understanding are to be found in this world...I imagine them to be coming from the 21st century philosopher...

As Einstein reduced the universe's behavior into 5 characters...the philosopher should also...

Yet most that I read are more concerned with sounding intelligent than being understood...

I contend that the true 21st century philosopher is a reductionist!

Who's in Control?

Man has sought control over his destiny since the very beginning...

Maslow recognized that the survival instinct is at the very base of our existence...

Across the ages this has been one of the compelling questions...and it continues to be today

Some end with a complete abdication of control to a higher entity...while others have given full responsibility to the individual...

After some thought I believe that the middle road is applicable to the 21st century!

Let's look into the the life cycle of a single individual...to understand why I have come to this conclusion... 

At the moment of birth, a human has absolutely no control...

This quickly changes...the infant discovers that they can get fed or have discomforts eased through crying!

Crying actually causes the mother to produce milk!

This need of control (which is self-serving) does not subside as the infant matures...in fact it expands...(all for self-serving purposes)

We recognize this as individuals trying to "spread their wings"...

At some point in the maturity process...the child believes that they have sufficient control and they leave the protection of their parents...

It is at that point that many realize that the control that they thought they had...was an illusion...

It was not that they lost control upon leaving...but that they no longer lived under a umbrella or protection that shielded them from the consequences of misguided control or poor decisions!

Let's stop here for a few sentences and step back...to get a better understanding of control...

Control is an interesting concept...

Most believe that control is defined as the ability to make choices...and the timing of said choices...

In its most basic form...this is true...(we'll come back to this)

I, however, have a tendency to start by reducing or limiting control or choices by referring to Plato's logic...

For the sake of brevity...this argument is available in Plato's Republic...

His conclusion was..."We are free to only do the good..."

Freedom (hence control) for any activity, other than good...is not really freedom (control)...

I prefer to begin at this point, because it already reduces the control (freedom) that we have...

Having said that...let's go into what I was thinking...

Control and freedom are closely related...

In fact, when freedom disappears...so too does control...

Control (as previously, but briefly stated) is in three separate categories...

What one does...

How well one does what they choose to do...AND...

When, what one chooses to do, is done

What one does...

The "what" has been answered by Plato!

Plato concludes that one is free (in control) only when they are doing "good."

I have to add that there may be a few instances in which the "what" does not affect anything external to the individual exercising control...and then full control is with that individual...(this needs a bit more thought and discussion).

How well one does what they choose to do...

As previously stated...unless the "what" one is doing affects only the person doing it...which is seldom the case...the "How well one does it" is determined externally from the do'er!

This is important because the first part of understanding the middle road conclusion is found here!

The only time that the do'er has control over "how well it is done" is when the internal or personal standard of performance meets or exceeds that of the external standard.

What that means that the "good" is defined initially by those externally affected by the choice and it remains the standard of performance...unless the standard of performance on the individual (doing the choosing) is higher than and exceeds that of the external...   

This opens up another discussion that will be pursued at a later time (pertaining to the definition of good).

It is a logical conclusion that the do'er has abdicated control...if their standard is less than the external standard...because their choice of how well it is done...

For someone to say "that is the way I do it" as an excuse for substandard performance...is immature and moving towards the standard definition of social insanity...

Interesting thought...isn't it...

One is rightly free to "be a unique individual" (have control) only when they can perform beyond the level of expectations of "the rule makers!"

Now let's move to the final area of control...

"When (the timing of ) the choice is done..."

Using the previous logic...

An individual has full control of their behavior prior to the point of expected delivery of results...from the external standard...

That means that as long as a person is "ahead of schedule"...they have full control over "when they do it..."

This changes however...and...

They again abdicate control after the time of delivery (by the external expectation)...it is at this point that they can no longer "call the shots!"

At that point...the external standard gets full control!

Another interesting thought!

So let's now draw this all into a single scheme...

What does this all mean to us?

Control is fully in an individuals arena prior to the external expected standard...

delivery...and if the individual's standard of performance is higher than the external standard...

If an individual is trying attempting to exercise control their life...their performance standards need to be shifted higher and sooner than the external expectations...

If they do not shift their personal performance standards...they can not expect to have control...because by definition they have abdicated it to the external standard...

Interesting thought...and enough said on this series of thoughts...

Across the ages...their have been numerous skeptics that put control into the hands of "entities," secret organizations, or conspiracies...or in the hands of God or "the gods."



This means that they abdicated control to these entities (real or unreal)

Rather than recognizing that control can be maintained by ascribing to a higher standard...than the perceived external source...

The paranoia of conspiracy theorists...is internally driven...by their "sub-standards!"

Now this leads me to another aspect that is interesting and somewhat related!

Consequences!

Individuals, especially the immature, desire to do what they want (control) and not have to suffer the consequences for their decisions...

A great case in point...teenagers!

I want to play rather than study...

A VERY hedonistic and emotionally immature behavior...

Our teen in question plays rather than studies...with total disregard to the outcome...

Then when the grades come out...they do not want the consequences...another emotionally immature behavior

or...

They make excuses...

or...

They want the external entities to forgive them...or "cut the slack."

Many are not willing to expend the additional effort in the present to rectify what their past decision predicated...

This is the recourse related to seeing that control has a dual nature...and that there is a definite point at which control is intentionally or unintentionally abdicated...

Many times individuals are not able to (or intentionally refuse to) see many related outcomes related to abdicating control...

Bad grades...no auto insurance discount...

The external entities refuse to pay non-discounted insurance rates...when the choice for good grades was in control of the individual...

therefore...now the individual who abdicated control...needs to get a job to offset the cost of their decision to play rather than do homework...

The immature conclusion would be to want an external entity to make it all better for them...

Our society has called the behavior of the external entity "tough love."  It is actually the logical and right response...

Many enablers would simply abdicate their responsible control in reverse to an undeserving individual by paying the insurance premiums...

I have ridden this horse to death!

"Who is in control?" is an interesting 21st century concept.

There is control for the individual...but there is also a point of abdication.

Claiming total control or total lack of control are positions at the extreme ends of the philosophical spectrum...and not representative of reality or functional within our societies...

Enough said...for now!