Outstanding article! I wonder, however, if it's merely academic (not that that fact would diminish its quality). I wonder how practical would it be to have two sets of rights, one for citizens and one for subjects. Auther Robert Heinlein wrote about a society in which only those who volunteered for military service were considered citizens. It's an interesting concept, earning one's citizenship, and I would probably support it if practical.

Thanks for the great read.

Voting does NOT make you a citizen. I will not vote this year because the system is broken. My vote (and yours) are meaningless.

I'm a citizen for many reasons, one of which is my prompt payment of my taxes. If I don't vote and lose my citizenship may I stop paying taxes too? I think not.

In my opinion voting in this election is like yelling at a wall. You might make some noise, but that wall is going to stand there, unchanging.

The system is broken. When someone even ATTEMPTS to repair it I will vote again. Until then, I'll be at work making sure I make enough money to pay my taxes.

Thanks so much Jeff!

What do you think of Chris's suggestion that the way you "earn" your citizenship is by paying taxes?

Is Chris suggesting that citizenship can legitimately be bought, perhaps?

Or is Chris saying only the rich (the "property owners") should be citizens? Some countries have been founded on that mythology.

I'd like to see someone do an analysis of whether Heinlein's suggestion would make a country a timocracy, and whether Chris's would make it an oligarchy (in Plato's sense [from The Republic]).

Please consider my feedback that you have written a dangerous article:

What may make Democracy a myth is the assumption that citizens "should" vote, even if they know nothing about what they are voting for or against.

Our FIRST DUTY is to make sure that we personally know as much as we can about the issues at steak, and the candidates (including their character, track record, promises, how they may have relevant and unique insights, and/or experience)

Our SECOND DUTY is to vote if we have met the FIRST DUTY, and to not vote if we have not met the FIRST DUTY.

Although every citizen that the government has not disenfranchised, can vote if they wish to, our inalienable DUTIES require each one of us to well informed votes.

Your article seems to encourage folks who have not taken the time or interest to become informed, to vote anyway. When such uninformed votes are cast in large numbers, elections can be won by candidates or special interests who have spent the most money on superficial arguments or even propaganda. The probability that bad candidates may be elected due to other fallacies, also rises with the percentage of uninformed votes that are cast.

Sadly, the Democracy myth that you speak of, and which I assert is actually propagated as a myth by folks who cast uniformed ballots, has become something that has become entrenched to the point where money and the power to tax and spend, not only buy elections, but also control our education system, public forums, social and philosophical thinking, to the point where rarely do we hear or think of the paradigm that a Republic can only survive without tyranny when the people righteously vote.

It is not righteous to cast a vote in ignorance. Nor is it righteous for elected despots to beguile the people by advocating that we strip small groups of citizens of their voting rights who may have experiences that can serve as checks and balances to ever increasing government control. Yet ignorant votes are cast by the millions and some State constitutions have been amended to take away inalienable rights (which are God given and cannot be taken away) and to replace them with unalienable “privileges” (which may be withheld or granted by government).

Thanks Jack!

You make great points.

So Micah, Chris's statement about paying taxes and being a citizen is more like a response to the idea mentioned above about different rights for nonvoters. He still pays taxes to the ruler, that is the voters, because he lives here. He still gets the benefits, and the burn, for being in a nation-state. That means he's a citizen.

I think you were too high in transcendental bullsh** today Micah. A Democracy is where those who vote rule, yes. The rest are subjects. Now this doesn't mean a voter can push me around everyday in the sense of "Give me cheesecake knave!" It just means I obey the laws set in place by voters, who in a Democracy rule. You don't need to be a ruler to be a citizen. You just need to fit into the requirements for citizenship that the rulers of the nation-state make.

Interesting, Darlene. So do you think noncitizens who pay taxes (say, you Canadian friends who live and work here) should count as citizens on Chrisian theory?

Your argument, if I understand you, is this: "We think we live in a democracy, but we don't; therefore mere-subjects can be citizens." I'm not convinced that contradicts my argument, but it's well worth discussing.

Also, I've never been "high in" anything before, so I'll take your word for it. But I appreciate the sense of humor with which you read. Hopefully next time I'll only be appropriately-high, as opposed to "too" high.

*your Canadian friends.

Although, you could be Canadian, I suppose.

This is *not* a democracy and was never meant to be. Democracy is tyranny by majority. The Founders warned about that. We live in a Republic, or Democratic Republic. It's all about the Constitution. Micah, you talk like a philosophy major ;o) It sounds nice and everything, but it seems you do not understand your US civics.