Citizenship and Libertarianism

"citizens, not subjects" is like saying "squares, not quadrilaterals”

citizenship  Politically, “citizen” is often used by today’s ^*statists to attempt to mark a distinction between a supposedly ^*free people with ^*rights who live under the ^*rule of law with a ^*liberal and ^*democratic ^*constitution, and those who are the unwilling subjects of a ^*state’s rule (in ancient times citizenship was seen more in terms of ^*duties than rights and not necessarily involving democracy or ^*liberty). Citizenship is one of the several modern ^*propaganda attempts to ^*legitimise, and even expand the ^*powers of, the state. But while there is a state, it is necessarily ^*sovereign with the people subjected to its ^*initiated imposed rule (however relatively liberal that rule might be, and however much popular opinion approves of it). The people, therefore, cannot themselves be free or sovereign individuals. They did not ^*consent to state rule; and they can have very little influence on how they are ruled (see ^*voting). Although citizens might be accorded various rights that are distinguishable from non-citizens living in the same state territory, they remain a subset of the class of subjects of state rule (although people in the political ^*class are sometimes partly both rulers and ruled). Therefore, “citizens, not subjects”, as the ^*politically correct slogan has it, is like saying “squares, not quadrilaterals”. In practice, the extension of citizenship has meant more people having more “rights” to things at other people’s initiated imposed expense; whether by ^*taxation or ^*regulation. Thus, increasing citizenship usually increases ^*collectivism and ^*politicisation at the expense of liberty and ^*welfare. “Liberty, not citizenship” or “sovereign individuals, not citizens” is far more ^*civilised.

(This is an entry from A LIBERTARIAN DICTIONARY: Explaining a Philosophical Theory [draft currently being revised]. Asterisks indicate other entries.)