Why am I a citizen?

[und]

I would like to ask; isn't it the most basic of human rights to be free of a government? Why do I have to follow a set of rules made by someone else? Have I given my consent by being born???

Also, is there a single place on earth, not counting the oceans, which isn't a country? What if I would like to live by myself, without these rules?

It all seems a bit strange to me..

[Bitter Ashes]

I suppose you could declare independance. The sad part is that it'd just be ignored and the taxman would come with baliffs to forcibly collect taxes, or throw you in jail if you fail to pay, as if you were a member of the parent country, or the police will come to forcibly capture you for charges that would be crimes in the parent country too.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It is strange. It's unatural. No one should have the authority that they do have in this world. That is why I am an Anarchist. I have always thought it weird from a young age exactly what you are saying, why do they have the power to rule over us? As Jean-Jacques Rousseau said: "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains".

[und]

It really angers me how freedom can be taken away from someone the moment they are born... I'm 14 and I'm just beginning to really understand the scale that this is happening at. I am a citizen of earth, not of the UK, so I should have a right to live on earth how I want, but that's not the case. I've been on the left from a far younger age though, and I've been thinking about politics for about 2 years now. My parents are open-minded Marxists, so I guess that helps.

[Bitter Ashes]

There has been a few minor incidents even in the later parts of the 20th and early 21st century of people in the UK declaring independance. Off the top of my head...
- Keele university declared independance in the 60's or 70's and was actualy invaded by the British Army
- Sealand, an ex WW2 naval fort in the North Sea that had been squatted in since 1967 declared independance from the UK. A year later the Royal Navy invaded and captured the inhabitants, taking them to a British court. The court ruled that Sealand was outside the 3 mile coast of the UK and therefore not in the jurisdiction of the UK. Since then the UK has extended its territorial claim of the waters around the UK to 12 miles. It's been invaded and recaptured numerous times by various European nations. None of them officialy recognise it as independant though.
- Forvick island, one of the Shetland isles claims to have declared indendance recently. There's one guy who visits to fish there and he's selling plots. The island's tiny, only the size of a football pitch and there's no permanent structures. It's not been recognised as an independant country.

[und]

There has been a few minor incidents even in the later parts of the 20th and early 21st century of people in the UK declaring independance. Off the top of my head...
- Keele university declared independance in the 60's or 70's and was actualy invaded by the British Army
- Sealand, an ex WW2 naval fort in the North Sea that had been squatted in since 1967 declared independance from the UK. A year later the Royal Navy invaded and captured the inhabitants, taking them to a British court. The court ruled that Sealand was outside the 3 mile coast of the UK and therefore not in the jurisdiction of the UK. Since then the UK has extended its territorial claim of the waters around the UK to 12 miles. It's been invaded and recaptured numerous times by various European nations. None of them officialy recognise it as independant though.
- Forvick island, one of the Shetland isles claims to have declared indendance recently. There's one guy who visits to fish there and he's selling plots. The island's tiny, only the size of a football pitch and there's no permanent structures. It's not been recognised as an independant country.

In order:
-under what right was it invaded?
-isn't that the Principality of Sealand, which according to the Wikipedia page has been inhabited by the same people since 1967?
-who recognises countries? if it's recognised by us, then isn't it recognised as a country?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What would be the point though. If you were to find independence you would still be surrounded by a Capitalist world. There would be no point to it. They would either re-colonise you or you would be forced to participate in the Capitalist world to survive.

[Bitter Ashes]

In order:
-under what right was it invaded?
Under the same "right" that any border is drawn. They can invade and the "enemy" didnt have enough international support to make it controversial.

-isn't that the Principality of Sealand, which according to the Wikipedia page has been inhabited by the same people since 1967?German, Dutch and French groups have invaded Sealand and the Royal Navy has also arrested the family and taken them to the UK before now. With the small groups the family seems to have hired mercenaries to recapture Sealand from the invaders. It seems quite bizzare to think that this is all over a little concrete island, but they're adamant it's thiers.

-who recognises countries? if it's recognised by us, then isn't it recognised as a country?A country is recognised by another country when a diplomatic mission is established there. It can be seen as controversial to side with the rebels by legitimising thier new state though, so it's often a long road to get official recognitition. For example, a lot of countries refused to acknowledge the rule of the PRC and maintained that the ROC was the true rulers of China, who were merely governing from Taiwan and preparing to strike back at what they see as an active rebellion.

[und]

German, Dutch and French groups have invaded Sealand and the Royal Navy has also arrested the family and taken them to the UK before now. With the small groups the family seems to have hired mercenaries to recapture Sealand from the invaders. It seems quite bizzare to think that this is all over a little concrete island, but they're adamant it's thiers.


These things seem almost film-like, they're so unreal.

[Bitter Ashes]

These things seem almost film-like, they're so unreal.
Isnt it just? :lol:
I guess the guy really really just doesnt like paying taxes.

[und]

Isnt it just? :lol:
I guess the guy really really just doesnt like paying taxes.
I bet it's been set up as a tax haven for his own businesses. In this scenario, you don't know whose side to be on, really. The rich man who doesn't want to pay taxes, or the rich collection of people who make up and control the government...

[Bitter Ashes]

I suppose you could declare independance. The sad part is that it'd just be ignored and the taxman would come with baliffs to forcibly collect taxes, or throw you in jail if you fail to pay, as if you were a member of the parent country, or the police will come to forcibly capture you for charges that would be crimes in the parent country too.
Can everyone please re-read this post for me and see if there's anything in there that would warrant this message below? :confused: I'm confused
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/7042/hate.jpg

[STJ]

I am not confused.

[Kami]

Why do I have to follow a set of rules made by someone else? Have I given my consent by being born???

The general idea, if I remember, is that of assumed consent. IIRC, you are supposedly giving consent by continuing to reside in a country.

As I'm sure everyone here knows, that's a load of bull. But since when have liberals made sense?

[Il Medico]

These things seem almost film-like, they're so unreal.

Indeed, it is sad enough that wars are fought for small bit of good real estate, but a fake island? Come on, wtf?

[Dust Bunnies]

Marx died without being a citizen (he was a citizen of Prussia, but Prussia was dissolved, he died in Britain citizenless). The entire concept of territory is animalistic. How are we different than the dogs who mark their territory?

[und]

Marx died without being a citizen (he was a citizen of Prussia, but Prussia was dissolved, he died in Britain citizenless). The entire concept of territory is animalistic. How are we different than the dogs who mark their territory?
Are humans not animals? Going by the fact that we are, then violence and guarding of territory must be an instinctive and natural thing... Just a thought, I don't think humans, as animals with the intellectual capacity to communicate in a more efficient way, should be using violence against other humans, and everyone should be allowed everywhere, regardless of their background.

[NecroCommie]

I have already asked my high school society teacher whether I could renounce my citizenship. The answer was laughs and a "no"... So much for consent and justification.

Don't worry, I will find a way to be officially international.


...and everyone should be allowed everywhere, regardless of their background.

This is a naive, albeit a benevolent thought. We cannot "allow" capitalists, for capitalists only wish to take that "allowing" away. Therefore we can only choose between allowing everyone but capitalists, or abandoning the entire idea by legitimazing the narrow minds of capitalism.

[und]

I have already asked my high school society teacher whether I could renounce my citizenship. The answer was laughs and a "no"... So much for consent and justification.

Don't worry, I will find a way to be officially international.

This is a naive, albeit a benevolent thought. We cannot "allow" capitalists, for capitalists only wish to take that "allowing" away. Therefore we can only choose between allowing everyone but capitalists, or abandoning the entire idea by legitimazing the narrow minds of capitalism.
Does that mean there's only one way forward for us? Wiping out capitalists once and for all? I doubt it'll ever happen, and if every capitalist was to suddenly die of "natural" causes, then there would be few people left standing... I don't believe that violence is the way forward, but education.

[Lynx]

See Perpetual traveler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The short answer is that you are a citizen because there are billions of people on the planet.

It's a very selfish thing to say that you should be free of any responsibility to the planet, to your fellow human beings, to the greater good. What makes you so special that the obligations we all face should be alleviated off yourself because you don't want to help?


Way too many people for there not to be a system. Capitalism does its job, if only a shitty one. But to suggest replacing the extremely complicated system with nothing is ridiculous.

Not that anarchism is ridiculous, mind you, but a system in which the individual has no responsibility towards society is implausible and comes off very adolescent, no offense to anyone in particular.

I am not an anarchist, by the way.

[und]

The short answer is that you are a citizen because there are billions of people on the planet.

It's a very selfish thing to say that you should be free of any responsibility to the planet, to your fellow human beings, to the greater good. What makes you so special that the obligations we all face should be alleviated off yourself because you don't want to help?


Way too many people for there not to be a system. Capitalism does its job, if only a shitty one. But to suggest replacing the extremely complicated system with nothing is ridiculous.

Not that anarchism is ridiculous, mind you, but a system in which the individual has no responsibility towards society is implausible and comes off very adolescent, no offense to anyone in particular.

I am not an anarchist, by the way.
I never suggested that there should be no system. I'm saying I should not be obliged to be a citizen of this country, but it should be my freedom to be a citizen of the world.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

OK I see your point.

Antartica perhaps?

Though there are many areas were you can go and disappear from civilization and not have any responsibilities to any state. Kinda just stay under the radar.

[Revy]

You could always become a citizen of the Koronis Federation (http://www.koronisfederation.org/). :laugh: They claim a bunch of asteroids as territory. Though, like many micronations, they're a monarchy. :glare:

[MarxSchmarx]

I suppose you could declare independance. The sad part is that it'd just be ignored and the taxman would come with baliffs to forcibly collect taxes, or throw you in jail if you fail to pay, as if you were a member of the parent country, or the police will come to forcibly capture you for charges that would be crimes in the parent country too.


Actually, it is possible to become what is known as a stateless person. This is often the fate of kids of refugees, for example, who flee country A for country B and have citizenship in neither. In theory a person could travel from country A to country B and renounce their A citizenship in country B. If the local authorities get whiff of this, almost certainly they will be deported back to country A.

I cannot recommend becoming stateless, at least under the current state of affairs. It is a very serious inconvenience that has hardly any value except maybe soothing your conscience.

You will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the area you are residing in with none of the privileges (e.g., access to jobs and other services accorded to citizens). Your ability to travel abroad would be severely curtailed. But, because you will almost certainly have no job, you will not owe taxes in most developed countries.

But to answer your question, ostensibly under international law citizenship is regarded as a matter over which individuals have decision making power.

[Revy]

Actually, it is possible to become what is known as a stateless person. This is often the fate of kids of refugees, for example, who flee country A for country B and have citizenship in neither. In theory a person could travel from country A to country B and renounce their A citizenship in country B. If the local authorities get whiff of this, almost certainly they will be deported back to country A.

I cannot recommend becoming stateless, at least under the current state of affairs. It is a very serious inconvenience that has hardly any value except maybe soothing your conscience.

You will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the area you are residing in with none of the privileges (e.g., access to jobs and other services accorded to citizens). Your ability to travel abroad would be severely curtailed. But, because you will almost certainly have no job, you will not owe taxes in most developed countries.

But to answer your question, ostensibly under international law citizenship is regarded as a matter over which individuals have decision making power.

There's a movie about a similar situation called The Terminal. It's actually quite good. It's about a man who has to live in an airport because that's the only place he can be.

[und]

There's a movie about a similar situation called The Terminal. It's actually quite good. It's about a man who has to live in an airport because that's the only place he can be.
Is there a single country in the world which will accept someone with no citizenships in any countries?

[MarxSchmarx]

Is there a single country in the world which will accept someone with no citizenships in any countries?

In principle one can be a permanent resident of a country while being technically stateless.

I know this is possible in the US (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071219101835AAl9xcy)
and have heard similar cases for France (http://books.google.com/books?id=-xR2u9sWkekC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=France+stateless&source=bl&ots=8ASBi8Ud1y&sig=xqiqylFdyNTrVz__bQh1Itkipuk&hl=en&ei=hlQeSt62OZzmsgPHz_SMCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9) and Japan (http://www.exeas.org/resources/koreans-in-japan.html).

I think in the UK there is something like "UK subjects" who are not technically British citizens but have the right to live and work in the UK.