Am I An American Citizen and What Might It Mean?

By Carl Watner

This article was prompted by thoughts of a trip abroad and my perusal of the “Application For A U.S. Passport” (Department of State Form DS-11). On page one, the applicant is asked to "declare under penalty of perjury" that "I am a citizen ... of the United States ... ."

Can I, as a voluntaryist, make that declaration? Can you?

First of all, what does it mean to be a citizen? What are the pros and cons of citizenship? Are they of any consequence?

The word ‘citizen’ is of Anglo-Norman and Old French origin and in the context of this article means “a member of the State.” From the perspective of the United States government, every person born within the United States has these basic duties:
..To serve in the military, if drafted;
..To pay taxes on his or her worldwide income;
..To serve as a juror and appear as a witness when subpoenaed by a court;
..To obey all the laws promulgated by local, state, and federal governments.

In return, the United States government’s primary duty towards its citizens is that of providing ‘protection’ from domestic criminals and foreign enemies. Federal, state, and local governments also provide courts, roads, postal delivery, social services, and numerous other entitlements to those living within its jurisdiction. (It generally does a poor job of providing ‘services’ and assumes no responsibility for its failures.)

The main problem with government, as voluntaryists see it, is that the State is a criminal organization. It claims sovereignty over a certain geographic area. Within this zone it wants everyone to become at least partially responsible for its crimes by making them citizens. It enforces a compulsory monopoly of defense (police, law and courts, and the armed forces), such that individual property owners may not decline its services, or employ another agency to provide the defense services they would prefer. To fund these monopolies, it collects compulsory levies known as taxation and operates a fiat money system (central bank with legal tender laws). In short, the State is an invasive institution because its existence rests on the initiation of coercion. According to the government, a person may not decline to fulfill his or her obligations to the State. You will be fined, arrested, and/or jailed, and probably held in “contempt” if government agents discover that you are not satisfactorily doing what you are supposed to do in fulfilling its mandates.

One of the ‘services’ provided by the American government is that of issuing passports and providing consular protection to those traveling outside the United States. Voluntaryists also object to the whole concept of government passports. To wit -
..They are government documents.
..They are generally required to leave the country.
..They are generally required for re-entry to the United States.
..They allow the government to track where you have been.
..They are unnecessary. For much of American history (with the exceptions of the War Between the States, and the First and Second World Wars), no passport requirements existed. It was not until 1978 that it was made “illegal [for a U.S. citizen] to enter or depart the United States without” a passport. [Wikipedia, “United States passport”]

This is not to deny that there might be travel documents issued by private organizations in a free society. Some travelers may consider passports an essential part of life, but providing them need not be a government function. As I discussed in my article, “The Exit Option,” passports at one time were issued by notaries, and even peddlers. Furthermore, there has never been a requirement to have a passport when traveling within the United States, for example, from the East coast to the West coast. And that being the case, why should there be such a requirement when leaving El Paso, Texas for Ciudad Juarez, Mexico or from Niagara Falls, New York to Niagara Falls, Ontario? (By extension, voluntaryist logic questions why there should be any political boundaries at all.)

The whole purpose of government passports is to help the government to exercise control over its citizens, whether within or without the United States (and to generate revenue for itself in doing so).

This leads to the next question: who might be citizens of the United States?

Since many people reading this article are native-born Americans, I will only discuss the concept of birthright citizenship. This refers to people who were born within the geographical confines of the United States, and harks back to the old English common law which held that “birth and [political] allegiance go together.”

[Wikipedia, “Birthright citizenship in the United States” (sub-section: “English common law”)] Citizenship law can be very complicated, so for simplicity sake, I will confine the discussion of birthright citizenship to those born within the United States of parents, who themselves, were born in the United States.

Generally, according to government interpretation, a person born within the territory of the United States is a citizen of the United States, regardless of that person’s desire. You become a citizen at birth, not when you reach adulthood, at age 18 or 21. You do not consent to become a citizen. You do not have any choice in the matter. You are simply designated a citizen! And if you wish to divest yourself of that status, you must leave the country, and formally renounce your citizenship before an American consular official outside of the United States.(And if you do this for the reason of not wanting to pay taxes to the United States government, you are still obligated to pay those taxes for another ten years from the date of your renunciation.) Jeff Knaebel, who immolated himself in India in 2011, discovered that he could not divest himself of his American nationality without assuming Indian citizenship, a fact that disconcerted him greatly. All political governments and international law discourage statelessness, which is what one becomes when one renounces one’s birthright citizenship and refuses to assume citizenship of another country. But the fact is that all people are born stateless. They certainly have not consented to become a member of any government merely by being born. If a government can unilaterally impose citizenship, then it has already assumed arbitrary jurisdiction over bodies. Perhaps that is why the Jewish zealots said that taxation (a consequence of citizenship) was no better than an introduction to slavery. If the government can assert its control over you due to the fact that you were born in an area it claims to control, then it is simply a matter of grace - on its part - as to what it allows you to do, to earn, and to keep from your efforts.

In truth and good conscience, and as a voluntaryist, I cannot affirm that I am a citizen of the United States. Why so? I don’t want to give my sanction to the United States government. I do not wish to support it financially. I do not wish to participate in political elections. I object to the forced collection of taxes because taxes are a euphemism for stealing. I do not want to be responsible for any of the actions of the United States government. Is there not a link between the crimes of the United States government and the citizens who compose it, those who pay their taxes, those who vote in elections, and serve in its armed forces? This is not to say, however, that I do not want to be a vibrant participant in the voluntary sector of the community within which I live. Communities have always existed before governments, and there are many peaceful ways of providing for the demands of society in the absence of the State (private business activity, co-operative societies, religious supported institutions, and philanthropic efforts, to name just a few).

So what does it mean to be an American citizen? Is an American citizen a slave of his government? A slave is a person who is “the property of another,” a person who is “bound to absolute obedience.” The status of a slave is not a matter of choice. A slave has the major decisions of his or her life made by his or her owner. Must a citizen fight in wars declared by the American government? Must a citizen risk his or her life to defend it? Must a citizen kill those whom the government labels “enemies”? Must a citizen support the American government by paying its tax bill(s)? Is there any limit to the amount it may demand? Must a citizen be forced against his or her will to serve as a juror or as a witness in criminal or civil legal proceedings? And finally, must a citizen obey the government’s laws, many of which are inane, insane, or simply against his or her conscience? The government’s answers to these questions are obviously, “Yes,” though a person may choose to say “No,” and refuse to follow its orders. Ultimately, if enough of us speak out and say “No,” the government will lose its legitimacy.

The American government can call me anything it wants, but that does not make it so. It can label me an American citizen, but it forgets that I have a say in the matter. In my own mind and in my own person I refuse to be subservient and accept its jurisdiction over me. That is why I am not an American citizen.

Articles of Further Interest
“If This Be Treason, Make the Most of It!” The Voluntaryist, Issue 30, February 1988.
“The Exit Option,” The Voluntaryist, Issue 37, April 1989.
“Conflicts of Allegiance,” The Voluntaryist, Issue 37, April 1989.
“Man Without a Country,” The Voluntaryist, Issue 49, April 1991.
“Citizenship Papers,” by Clark Hanjian, The Voluntaryist, Issue 49, April 1991.
“Patriotism or Voluntaryism? – ‘Anywhere So Long As There Be Freedom’,” The Voluntaryist, Issue 66. February 1994.
“Why I Refuse to Be Numbered,” The Voluntaryist, Issue 116, 1st Quarter 2003.
“The Territorial Imperative: Rationale for Conquest,” The Voluntaryist, Issue 133, 2nd Quarter 2007.
“Slavery and National ID” in NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS (2004).

Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

By Carl Watner

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

The Epistemological Argument

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, "No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence." Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, "You cannot shoot a truth!" The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation.

Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force "is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion," and "if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak." Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

The Economic Argument

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it.

Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions.

Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, "controlled" economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the "unforeseeable and unpredictable." Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The Moral Argument

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn't guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of "better" on someone else, it protects us from having someone else's idea of "better" imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

The Natural Law Argument

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. "If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government." Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. "In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer."

The Means-End Argument

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one's rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

The Consistency Argument

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to "wage a war for peace" or "fight politics by becoming political." Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man's freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man's freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

The Integrity, Self-Control, and Corruption Argument

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life.

Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one's ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people's lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.

Copyright © Carl Watner 2010