Patriotism

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is it possible to love your country too much?


You have seen them. The flag-toters. The "America can do no wrong" crowd. Their cars, houses, and clothes all decked out in red, white, and blue. Such people will agree with absolutely any policy the government applies, and anyone who disagrees is, quite frankly, an evil liberal.


Nationalism breeds pride, arrogance, greed, violence, and selfishness. I feel that history backs up this statement. Can't just about every war in the history of humanity be at least partially attributed to nationalistic interests? You would be hard pressed to cite one that doesen't.

I reject the notion that a good citizen should sport an un-conditional love for their country. I hate America in a number of aspects. I consider this my civic duty, as a matter of fact. How may we ever progress as a country if we neglect to lobby for change, when the need for change becomes apparent?

The world is far from achieving the utopian idea of a united global state. And as long as we are stuck in the current condition of blind patriotism indifferent to the needs of others, the farther away this goal becomes.

When many countries compete, some countries will lose.

Personally, I do not want any losers.
I would urge everyone to support not merely the interests of ones own country, but the interests of every country, every person, inevery corner of the planet. I believe that such a change of attitude is the first step towards peace.

It is human nature to compete. But it does not have to be this way. We have clearly evolved much since the first humans. God forbid we take advantage of these new capabilities and progress beyond our primitive ancestors.




Tell me what you think. Can one be patriotic without crossing the line over into 'nationalistic'? Are there any upsides to patriotism? What is even the purpose of patriotism? Is it ones civic duty to be patriotic?

[Cephus]

I agree. But how are they to decide what political system they want? Do they take a vote? Wait...that would be democracy. Do the existing leaders choose for them? If so, why not the US? Both scenarios would be undemocratic and dictatorial. If they are really unhappy with the US, they will rise, as you say, and send them out (like the Vietnamese did).

It is possible to vote for a non-democratic system, you know. They could easily choose a dictatorship, a theocracy, etc. I think it's only a matter of time before they go back to what they had before, democracy and hardline Islam don't really seem to work that well together. But it will be their choice and hopefully whoever is in the White House at the time won't be an ass like Bush and go back and force them to be what he wants them to be.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Some interesting statistics.


Anyone still under the impression that America is the "most charitable and generous nation on Earth"? Welcome to reality.

Read it and weep.

Don't be fooled by the net ODA amount. The US being amoung the three richest nations on earth, this is no surprise. But look at the percent GNP figures. What America gives could scarcely be considered pocket change.

[Dilettante]

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:

We cannot always accurately fortell the consequences of our actions, I agree with you there. However, praising evil campaigns for the unpredicted good they might have brought about is justification for any ruling faction to continue their oppression. "I know this widescale genocide we are undertaking may SEEM evil, but trust us guys, you will enjoy the results".

I am not praising any "evil campaigns", and certainly not wholesale genocide. I'm just pointing out that the results often do not match the intentions, for better and sometimes for worse.

Dilettante: All states defend their interests (not just the US).
The Persnickety Platypus:And it should not be this way.

How could it be much different? States can cooperate and form alliances with other states, but they cannot be allied with every nation and every culture in the world.

All these silly borders. With all our technological advances (internet, travel, television, telephones, ect), few things remain to impede the diffusion of cultures, which in the past was the prime factor barring the accomplishment of a united global state. But this glimmer of hope is continuously squashed by many people's purely asinine tendancy to patriotism and national loyalty.

First, it has yet to be proved that a lack of technology was the prime factor impeding a global state. Second, it is precisely those cultures that cause conflict and war. Only if we relegate those cultures to a secondary plane can we even begin to create a universal state.

This is why I refuse to be patriotic. Devotion to one's own country results in complete negligence to every other. Screw America. I'm rooting for the world instead.

And if you root for an abstraction like "the world", you are neglecting the real nations which actually exist. You're beginning to sound metaphysical, as if the different nations and cultures did not have their own different and many times incompatible ideas of "peace", for example. And if alien civilizations were discovered, you'd have to root for them too to avoid becoming an Earth-centered chauvinist, I suppose. Your position seems very hard to maintain.

Indeed. Our government, as most others (aside from those too busy trying to stay alive due to predatation) spends 100% of it's time plotting ways to screw over other peoples. The plots are never simple, and successful ones must always be inconspicuous enough to pass the ignorant stare of the honest public. If so many people were not proud enough to blatantly deny the various conspiracies our elected officials perform, I expect Washington would be burnt to the ground by now.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist...

Once again, it is that darned patriotic attitude that stifles any and all real progression.

In other words, you are patriotic too, but your nation is still an idea, like Plato's perfect city. If I understand correctly, your kingdom is not of this world.

Then we must abolish all empires.

People the world over must band together for the united socialist state to succeed. Powerful checks must be put in place to prevent individual factions from rising to power. All existing governments must be dismantled, and rebuilt into a single aggregation working towards the achievment of a single likeminded goal.

To abolish all empires you need to created another empire to vanquish the rest, and it better not be a historical creation because then you cannot bring about "the end of history", or , if you are a Marxist, the "end of prehistory and the beginning of history." But that's where we part company because you are entering the world of metaphysics.

How will I accomplish this? Well, still working that part out.....

That's the main problem, you see. Are you sure you're being realistic?

[Dilettante]

I agree. But how are they to decide what political system they want? Do they take a vote? Wait...that would be democracy. Do the existing leaders choose for them? If so, why not the US? Both scenarios would be undemocratic and dictatorial. If they are really unhappy with the US, they will rise, as you say, and send them out (like the Vietnamese did).

It is possible to vote for a non-democratic system, you know. They could easily choose a dictatorship, a theocracy, etc. I think it's only a matter of time before they go back to what they had before, democracy and hardline Islam don't really seem to work that well together. But it will be their choice and hopefully whoever is in the White House at the time won't be an ass like Bush and go back and force them to be what he wants them to be.

I agree that a dictator can be democratically elected. But then we need to extract the consequences of the policy of "letting them be what they want to be". In other words, president who is not an "ass" (in your description) should be prepared to fight those people if they pose a threat. Because he has let them be what they wanted, they may become enemies and he may have to destroy them. Not a brilliant prospect either.

[Cephus]

I agree that a dictator can be democratically elected. But then we need to extract the consequences of the policy of "letting them be what they want to be". In other words, president who is not an "ass" (in your description) should be prepared to fight those people if they pose a threat. Because he has let them be what they wanted, they may become enemies and he may have to destroy them. Not a brilliant prospect either.

They may become enemies now. Heck, there's a better chance IMO with them becoming enemies, simply because we are forcing them down a path they don't want, than if we had let them determine their own path. Or are all the roadside bombs a sign of a people who love us?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

How could it be much different? States can cooperate and form alliances with other states, but they cannot be allied with every nation and every culture in the world.

Can't, or won't?

Nationalism and egotism alone divide interests. Were we to abolish these, there would be little remaining to hinder us from accomplishing a united global socialist state.

First, it has yet to be proved that a lack of technology was the prime factor impeding a global state. Second, it is precisely those cultures that cause conflict and war. Only if we relegate those cultures to a secondary plane can we even begin to create a universal state.

Fundamentally different cultures may never be able to mingle. However, all the conflicts and wars you mention could have been prevented were greed and intolerance not factors; opposing cultures do not cause wars on their own. Should we succeed implementing cultural tolerance, perhaps we can work together to achieve the same economic goals.

And if you root for an abstraction like "the world", you are neglecting the real nations which actually exist. You're beginning to sound metaphysical, as if the different nations and cultures did not have their own different and many times incompatible ideas of "peace", for example. And if alien civilizations were discovered, you'd have to root for them too to avoid becoming an Earth-centered chauvinist, I suppose. Your position seems very hard to maintain.

Hard to maintain? It is simple as day.

All peoples of the world should let their sphere of concern and influence encompass not merely what lies within their own borders, but all known civilizations. This would include, theoretically, any alien populations, if we one day happen upon any. My ideal system knows no terrestrial bounds.

Essentially, rich America should be distributing it's wealth amoung African countries. African countries should distribute their (vastly unemployed) labor force to areas that garner its need. Oil rich Middle Eastern countries should give the spacemen from Pluto fair access to their petroleum reserves. All government/economic boundaries are obliterated (except for use in cultural references).

An equal coalition representing all nations on Earth regulate all of this, and serve as the central power of the entire system. Certain checks and balances would be inabled to fight inequity. Socialism, while achieving mixed results on an individual scale, would be much more efficient serving the aggregate.

Indeed. Our government, as most others (aside from those too busy trying to stay alive due to predatation) spends 100% of it's time plotting ways to screw over other peoples. The plots are never simple, and successful ones must always be inconspicuous enough to pass the ignorant stare of the honest public. If so many people were not proud enough to blatantly deny the various conspiracies our elected officials perform, I expect Washington would be burnt to the ground by now.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist...

No, I am just noting history. Exploitation is employed by all countries working towards national interests.

And the poor saps being used deny their contributions to these schemes... every time. Case in point, middle class Christians voting Republican.

If I understand correctly, your kingdom is not of this world.

Not yet.

To abolish all empires you need to created another empire to vanquish the rest, and it better not be a historical creation because then you cannot bring about "the end of history", or , if you are a Marxist, the "end of prehistory and the beginning of history." But that's where we part company because you are entering the world of metaphysics.

I will use advanced genetic engineering to weed out all human characteristics of greed, selfishness, violence, and intolerance. All peoples of the world will band together, a fair centralized power will be elected from all walks of life, and the new world order will commence.

Hey, it's as good a stragety as any.

That's the main problem, you see. Are you sure you're being realistic?

Of course I'm not being realistic. I wouldn't say my new world order is impossible to achieve (for that would be to abandon all hope), but we can sufficiently conclude that at this point in time, it is as close to theoretically impossible as one can concievably get.

However, the effort to needed to reach this distant goal may still induce some progress. Although we may not be able to make the world perfect, we CAN make it better.

[1John2_26]

There have always been those that proclaim "they have the answer" on world domination. Demons are satanic patriots.

In Matthew:

8 Next the Devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him the nations of the world and all their glory.

9"I will give it all to you," he said, "if you will only kneel down and worship me."

10 "Get out of here, Satan," Jesus told him. "For the Scriptures say,
You must worship the Lord your God; serve only him."

11 Then the Devil went away, and angels came and cared for Jesus.

Quote:
How could it be much different? States can cooperate and form alliances with other states, but they cannot be allied with every nation and every culture in the world.

Can't, or won't?

Nationalism and egotism alone divide interests. Were we to abolish these, there would be little remaining to hinder us from accomplishing a united global socialist state.
Quote:
First, it has yet to be proved that a lack of technology was the prime factor impeding a global state. Second, it is precisely those cultures that cause conflict and war. Only if we relegate those cultures to a secondary plane can we even begin to create a universal state.

Fundamentally different cultures may never be able to mingle. However, all the conflicts and wars you mention could have been prevented were greed and intolerance not factors; opposing cultures do not cause wars on their own. Should we succeed implementing cultural tolerance, perhaps we can work together to achieve the same economic goals.
Quote:
And if you root for an abstraction like "the world", you are neglecting the real nations which actually exist. You're beginning to sound metaphysical, as if the different nations and cultures did not have their own different and many times incompatible ideas of "peace", for example. And if alien civilizations were discovered, you'd have to root for them too to avoid becoming an Earth-centered chauvinist, I suppose. Your position seems very hard to maintain.

Hard to maintain? It is simple as day.

All peoples of the world should let their sphere of concern and influence encompass not merely what lies within their own borders, but all known civilizations. This would include, theoretically, any alien populations, if we one day happen upon any. My ideal system knows no terrestrial bounds.

Essentially, rich America should be distributing it's wealth amoung African countries. African countries should distribute their (vastly unemployed) labor force to areas that garner its need. Oil rich Middle Eastern countries should give the spacemen from Pluto fair access to their petroleum reserves. All government/economic boundaries are obliterated (except for use in cultural references).

An equal coalition representing all nations on Earth regulate all of this, and serve as the central power of the entire system. Certain checks and balances would be inabled to fight inequity. Socialism, while achieving mixed results on an individual scale, would be much more efficient serving the aggregate.
Quote:
Quote:
Indeed. Our government, as most others (aside from those too busy trying to stay alive due to predatation) spends 100% of it's time plotting ways to screw over other peoples. The plots are never simple, and successful ones must always be inconspicuous enough to pass the ignorant stare of the honest public. If so many people were not proud enough to blatantly deny the various conspiracies our elected officials perform, I expect Washington would be burnt to the ground by now.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist...

No, I am just noting history. Exploitation is employed by all countries working towards national interests.

And the poor saps being used deny their contributions to these schemes... every time. Case in point, middle class Christians voting Republican.
Quote:
If I understand correctly, your kingdom is not of this world.

Not yet.
Quote:
To abolish all empires you need to created another empire to vanquish the rest, and it better not be a historical creation because then you cannot bring about "the end of history", or , if you are a Marxist, the "end of prehistory and the beginning of history." But that's where we part company because you are entering the world of metaphysics.

I will use advanced genetic engineering to weed out all human characteristics of greed, selfishness, violence, and intolerance. All peoples of the world will band together, a fair centralized power will be elected from all walks of life, and the new world order will commence.

Hey, it's as good a stragety as any.
Quote:
That's the main problem, you see. Are you sure you're being realistic?

Of course I'm not being realistic. I wouldn't say my new world order is impossible to achieve (for that would be to abandon all hope), but we can sufficiently conclude that at this point in time, it is as close to theoretically impossible as one can concievably get.

However, the effort to needed to reach this distant goal may still induce some progress. Although we may not be able to make the world perfect, we CAN make it better.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

So... peaceful interculteral cooperation is satanic?



Sorry, I'm not quite getting your point here.