Patriotism vs nationalism

[bloodyminded]

Country signifys physical real estate. Nation or nationalism signifys family..extended tribalizm! A nationalist is a person who helps his countrymen...who assists in the protection of real property. Our buisness elite and politicals along with our law makers have all gone international - as if being part of a nation is not quiet high or good enough for them. They impliment multi-culturalism because they disrespect their own place of origin and disrespect their own family. YOU must have a base - to sell off our population - or original culture to China for a bit of gold is obscene.. A patriot is a delluded fool who actually trusts the leaders who betray them.

Nations are not families; nations are full of people who don't care if their countrymen live or die. Or they even WANT them to die.

So no, not like a family.

[Pliny]

Whether the rest of your post is right or wrong, this example serves to undermine it. A great many Americans DO wish to have healthcare with a government option. Half of them, or more, according to virtually every single poll done by multiple sources on the subject.

You're either confusing the Representatives with majority American opinion, or you're confusing the current proposed plans with what Americans want. They can oppose the Obama plan without opposing a government option.

Just so you don't think I am confused on the subject I'll make some clarifications:

The majority want health care reform. There already is a government option in medicaid, SCHIP, and medicare. There is no poll that suggests the majority want a universal government option which is what Pelosicare is all about.

I think the election of Scott Brown indicates that.

[Michael Hardner]

The fact of the matter is that no economy can thrive without a reasonable respect for the sanctity of person and property. Government, on the whole, is becoming a greater threat to that concept than the criminal element in society and there lies the danger.

We've already discussed the trend here: less government, and less taxation. I agree with the idea of reasonable respect for property, and we certainly have that today.

[bloodyminded]

Just so you don't think I am confused on the subject I'll make some clarifications:

The majority want health care reform. There already is a government option in medicaid, SCHIP, and medicare. There is no poll that suggests the majority want a universal government option which is what Pelosicare is all about.

I think the election of Scott Brown indicates that.

Wrong.

Americans by a 2-1 margin prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" Americans favor government intervention in the health system by 69%-29%.

[This same poll, when the question is altered so that higher taxes are mentioned, STILL puts the "yes" respondents at half.]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-favor-universal-health-care----until-taxes-are-mentioned.php

Fifty-seven percent of those polled say they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide all Americans with health care coverage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4923731.shtml

Nearly 66 percent answered yes. Thats up from 63.4 percent in a July 2008 poll, the medical society said.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/01/pennsylvania_medical_society_f.html

This is just a small taste. The information on polls is overwhelmingly positive towards universal health care.

Edited February 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

[This same poll, when the question is altered so that higher taxes are mentioned, STILL puts the "yes" respondents at half.]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-favor-universal-health-care----until-taxes-are-mentioned.php

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4923731.shtml

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/01/pennsylvania_medical_society_f.html

This is just a small taste. The information on polls is overwhelmingly positive towards universal health care.

Ok. I stand corrected. I was wrong there are polls that show Americans want universal health-care. Democrats do definitely support it but i wouldn't have argued that point.

I don't know if you read any of the articles you posted but support fell sharply when other things were put in context like higher taxes and choice of Doctors.

Just where do you think the opposition for Obama's healthcare plan is coming from?

Republican politicians who aren't representing their constituents? If that were the case Scott Brown would never have stood a chance.

Or is it other Democrat policies that people disagree with?

[Pliny]

We've already discussed the trend here: less government, and less taxation. I agree with the idea of reasonable respect for property, and we certainly have that today.

Well, criminality is basically not having respect for the sanctity of person and property.

An economy will not thrive with rampant criminality. When government is any kind of threat to a person and his property it has criminal tendencies itself. What it will do though, to turn the tables, is make laws that justify it's acts by making the citizen a criminal so it appears to be only doing it's job of protecting the public. Meanwhile real criminals are compassionately, or for whatever reason, released back out onto the streets.

Upon the criminal re-offending it makes the government an aider and abettor of criminality.

Certainly, no one wants or intends their government to have criminal tendencies but once it starts granting privilege and favours to some at the expense of others it has lost it's ability to see all as equal under the law. And when the coffers are opened to some and closed to others yet we are all being governed and entitled to equal treatment under the law it is not happening. It is unfair and an improper use of it's revenues.

It still believes it has a right to those revenues but now some are slighted by how it uses them. This becomes an increasing and "progressive" problem because favours are hard to abrogate and th eonly way to make things fair is to grant equal favour to others. But then it further complicates justice and equality. This has nothing to do with managing the economy. It is all about how government will use the revenues they can get from the economy to make sure the squeaky wheels are greased and have it's payroll and financial obligations met. In times of economic hardship in the country it of course has to run deficits. And in times of economic prosperity it increases spending. It seems it's citizens learn to run their finances the same way and they too never get out of debt.

[bloodyminded]

I don't know if you read any of the articles you posted but support fell sharply when other things were put in context like higher taxes and choice of Doctors.

Yes. In one poll, support dropped below majority; in one poll it dropped to exactly half; and in the rest it dropped, but remained a majority.

Just where do you think the opposition for Obama's healthcare plan is coming from?

Republican politicians who aren't representing their constituents? If that were the case Scott Brown would never have stood a chance.

Or is it other Democrat policies that people disagree with?

No doubt there are lots of Democrat policies that people disagree with, and for different reasons depending on he who disagrees.

And in fact, there is a lot of disagreement with Obama's health plan.

But his proposed plan is not universal health care.

At any rate, all I was trying to do was to show that your original claim was mistaken.

To be clear, I have no horse in that race. Since I wish the American people every bit of health and happiness, I hope that ultimately they adopt a plan that is best suited for them. What that plan is, exactly, I don't know. Up to them.

Edited February 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Yes. In one poll, support dropped below majority; in one poll it dropped to exactly half; and in the rest it dropped, but remained a majority.

No doubt there are lots of Democrat policies that people disagree with, and for different reasons depending on he who disagrees.

And in fact, there is a lot of disagreement with Obama's health plan.

But his proposed plan is not universal health care.

At any rate, all I was trying to do was to show that your original claim was mistaken.

To be clear, I have no horse in that race. Since I wish the American people every bit of health and happiness, I hope that ultimately they adopt a plan that is best suited for them. What that plan is, exactly, I don't know. Up to them.

Yes my original claim was mistaken. I have learned a valuable lesson about polls.

They can tell any story they want basically so a poll can exist proving any point.

His proposed plan is about a government option to be clear and not universal health care. But as one of your articles pointed out, the term "universal health care" is vague. He wishes every American to have access to affordable health care. I don't think there is anyone against that concept.

Nevertheless, American health care is about to change. If they go for the public option they will lose the ability to change it much in the future except for it to become progressively expansive. I hope they keep their options open.

[Michael Hardner]

It still believes it has a right to those revenues but now some are slighted by how it uses them. This becomes an increasing and "progressive" problem because favours are hard to abrogate and th eonly way to make things fair is to grant equal favour to others. But then it further complicates justice and equality. This has nothing to do with managing the economy. It is all about how government will use the revenues they can get from the economy to make sure the squeaky wheels are greased and have it's payroll and financial obligations met. In times of economic hardship in the country it of course has to run deficits. And in times of economic prosperity it increases spending. It seems it's citizens learn to run their finances the same way and they too never get out of debt.

You're just restating this case over and over that taxation=theft, with more elaborate descriptions each time.

I have already said that I reject this premise. Taxation is like a tithe. "Progressive government as a disease" is a myth and I have pointed out that government intervention, service offerings and taxation was on the decline from the election of Ronald Reagan until the election of Barack Obama.

Do you want to respond to these points I have made so that the conversation can move forward ?

I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me that taxes are immoral by simply restating the case differently.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[bloodyminded]

Yes my original claim was mistaken. I have learned a valuable lesson about polls.

They can tell any story they want basically so a poll can exist proving any point.

His proposed plan is about a government option to be clear and not universal health care. But as one of your articles pointed out, the term "universal health care" is vague. He wishes every American to have access to affordable health care. I don't think there is anyone against that concept.

Nevertheless, American health care is about to change. If they go for the public option they will lose the ability to change it much in the future except for it to become progressively expansive. I hope they keep their options open.

I have little doubt they will.

[Oleg Bach]

Nations are not families; nations are full of people who don't care if their countrymen live or die. Or they even WANT them to die.

So no, not like a family.

Jamie is that you ? All those years at that private school must have really made you bitter. Let me explain what a patriot is - It is a person who actually cares and appreciates the thousands of persons that made him rich and powerful - the opposite of patriot is pig.

[bloodyminded]

Jamie is that you ? All those years at that private school must have really made you bitter. Let me explain what a patriot is - It is a person who actually cares and appreciates the thousands of persons that made him rich and powerful - the opposite of patriot is pig.

I'm afraid that, from your very first word here, I am left more than a little baffled.

To answer the one question I feel able to: No, I'm not "Jamie."

[Oleg Bach]

I'm afraid that, from your very first word here, I am left more than a little baffled.

To answer the one question I feel able to: No, I'm not "Jamie."

Jamie is retiring _ I hope! - my point was a nation is like a house - a royal house that we all share in and share the common wealth in. In that idea is the lurking fact that we are confined within one nation and are family - and those loyal to family are patriots - Nothing wrecks a family quicker and destroys the wealth like betrayal.

[Machjo]

Country signifys physical real estate. Nation or nationalism signifys family..extended tribalizm! A nationalist is a person who helps his countrymen...who assists in the protection of real property. Our buisness elite and politicals along with our law makers have all gone international - as if being part of a nation is not quiet high or good enough for them. They impliment multi-culturalism because they disrespect their own place of origin and disrespect their own family. YOU must have a base - to sell off our population - or original culture to China for a bit of gold is obscene.. A patriot is a delluded fool who actually trusts the leaders who betray them.

Interesting. So it becomes quite difficult to discuss the notion of patriotism vs nationalism when people can all have such divergent views of the two. It always runs the risk of two people agreeing with one another but not realizing it just because they don't understand each other.

I guess at that stage, there needs to be a clearer definition of the two terms to ensure we can all understand. Sure different people will have differing definitions of these terms, but I suppose as long as they define the terms clearly enough, then it is possible to understand each other.

For example, if one defines patriotism quite simply as nothing more nor less than love for one's country, while this might be a simple definition, at least it makes it easier for a person to answer whether he's a patriot or not according to that definition.

Likewise, if we define nationalism as a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another, again, it's a short, straightforward definition. When we end up with paragraph-long definitions of these terms, we find end up finding it difficult to answer simply because the definition is just not so clear anymore. According to the simple definitions above, I can easily say I'm a patriot but not a nationalist. On the other hand, if their respective definitions become too convoluted, I sit there finding it difficult to answer either one just because it's not so clear what it really means anymore.

[Machjo]

Jamie is retiring _ I hope! - my point was a nation is like a house - a royal house that we all share in and share the common wealth in. In that idea is the lurking fact that we are confined within one nation and are family - and those loyal to family are patriots - Nothing wrecks a family quicker and destroys the wealth like betrayal.

How do you define loyalty? If I catch my best friend stealing, I'd ask him to go to the person he stole from, give the thing back, apologize, and offer fair compensation. If he refuses, then I'd call the police on him, not because I dislike him, but for his own good, precisely because I want to better him. I remember one story of an old woman who turned got a man arrested for breaking into her home but guess what, she visited him in prison, made friends with him, and helped him get back on his feet once he was out of prison.

Or we can also take the example of Hasegawa Teru who fought on the Chinese side against the Japanese iperial Army even though she herself was Japanese. I'm sure there are plenty of other stories of the sort from Germany and Japan.

While certainly betrayal also betrays love, we have to be careful how we define it. A person who turns on his country on principle is not the same as one who turns on his country for personal profit. The one who turns on his country on principle does so in the same vein as a friend who turns his best friend in to the police, or a loving mother who turns her daughter in in order to help her. Such a person turns on his country precisely out of love for his country. He's essentially applying the tough love principle. This is not to be confused with the soldier of fortune who sells himself to the highest bidder, for instance.

[Shwa]

My claim to services falls on deaf ears. I get what everyone else gets. Nothing tailored to my needs.

I presume this to be a philosophical point? Then you would have to convince me first that it is possible that you can perfectly communicate your needs and that, once communicated, it is possible for someone else to tailor those services prefectly. If not, if there is a disconnection between how you perceive your needs, how that perception is communicated, and how someone else is capable of delivering those services then we move from ideology to practicality where 'better' is the only thing we can really aim for.

[Pliny]

I presume this to be a philosophical point? Then you would have to convince me first that it is possible that you can perfectly communicate your needs and that, once communicated, it is possible for someone else to tailor those services prefectly. If not, if there is a disconnection between how you perceive your needs, how that perception is communicated, and how someone else is capable of delivering those services then we move from ideology to practicality where 'better' is the only thing we can really aim for.

Ahhh... this is a fundamental in Austrian economics. All we can know of a man and his needs or desires is that he acts and "better" is generally the reasoning behind his actions. The individual is the only one who knows his reasons for acting and what he perceives to be "better". No one else can determine this with any precision as he would have to be entirely aware of the persons total education and experience. The further removed from direct communication with the individual the less chance of satisfying his needs. This makes government a poor provider of benefits and why things are not often perceived to be "better". Without direct consultation only the lowest common denominator can be served and all problems of individuals must be considered equal.

Now "better", as mentioned, is determined by the individual, it may appear to others to not be better and, in fact, in matters of trade, the trade must appear to better self moreso than the other individual and vice versa or trade would not occur. All that is necessary for trade to occur is that each person feels he has benefited from it. The benefit to the other person may or may not be apparent.

Ideally, a person would provide for himself entirely, practically the division of labour provides us with greater options and that is the basis of trade and economy. We see from a basic system of barter how the development of a system of money can facilitate trade and increase our options and choices. At this point we are still the final arbiters in what we consider is to our benefit. Government in offering benefit is really who decides what you get and cannot provide you any choice or options. It rarely does understand the needs of individuals. Of course, those that ask for benefit from government are generally victims of some circumstance and wish relief, and the benefit government can provide often falls short of that goal. The person is left wanting and must continue in his dire need in fear of being cut from receiving any benefit whatsoever. The point must be realized that his need will be actively created is order for it to be demonstrated so some benefit can be realized. It is often the easiest route to instant compensation and thus the "better" choice.

[Pliny]

While certainly betrayal also betrays love, we have to be careful how we define it. A person who turns on his country on principle is not the same as one who turns on his country for personal profit. The one who turns on his country on principle does so in the same vein as a friend who turns his best friend in to the police, or a loving mother who turns her daughter in in order to help her. Such a person turns on his country precisely out of love for his country. He's essentially applying the tough love principle. This is not to be confused with the soldier of fortune who sells himself to the highest bidder, for instance.

Well, how does a patriotic individual determine it is best to actively participate in the destruction of one's country by a third party out of principle? I can understand civil disobedience and protest and even civil war in that respect but to participate with an enemy of the country out of principle seems beyond the pale.

[Pliny]

Interesting. So it becomes quite difficult to discuss the notion of patriotism vs nationalism when people can all have such divergent views of the two. It always runs the risk of two people agreeing with one another but not realizing it just because they don't understand each other.

I guess at that stage, there needs to be a clearer definition of the two terms to ensure we can all understand. Sure different people will have differing definitions of these terms, but I suppose as long as they define the terms clearly enough, then it is possible to understand each other.

For example, if one defines patriotism quite simply as nothing more nor less than love for one's country, while this might be a simple definition, at least it makes it easier for a person to answer whether he's a patriot or not according to that definition.

Likewise, if we define nationalism as a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another, again, it's a short, straightforward definition. When we end up with paragraph-long definitions of these terms, we find end up finding it difficult to answer simply because the definition is just not so clear anymore. According to the simple definitions above, I can easily say I'm a patriot but not a nationalist. On the other hand, if their respective definitions become too convoluted, I sit there finding it difficult to answer either one just because it's not so clear what it really means anymore.

We must discuss the definition until we have a common understanding and thus understand what each other means when the word is mentioned.

The whole discussion of these two terms has been a clarification of them and I think your "simple" definitions suffice in describing the basic concepts we mutually agree upon. Others would have to have the same thing explained to them in order to understand us as precisely as we understand the terms.

[scorpio]

Canada is much like the old Mongolian empire - We did not stock pile gold and plunder - we stock piled people gathered from the four corners of the earth - we gathered the best talent - the best at all things - we are the richest nation on earth. We are the most powerful also - We do not need weapons like the Americans do (stay out of this one BC, I'm on a roll), We like the anient mongolians understand that gold is worthless - it is people that are the money...America still does not get this ---and that is why we dominate America - because though the brain drain that sent some of our best south - we kept the very best for ourselves - those not materially motivated..Canada has spirit!

Wow, a more cogent post than usual Oleg. Keep it up!

[Machjo]

Well, how does a patriotic individual determine it is best to actively participate in the destruction of one's country by a third party out of principle? I can understand civil disobedience and protest and even civil war in that respect but to participate with an enemy of the country out of principle seems beyond the pale.

To take Hasegawa Teru as an example, though she was fighting on the Chinese side against the Japanese Imperial Army, she was also fighting on Chinese soil, not Japanese soil. So she was fighting against the occupation of foreign land by her nation's army, not fighting to help another army occupy Japan.

So to take a parallel example, let's say Joe Smith opposes any kind of imperialism on principle, then it's reasonable to suppose that this same Joe Smith could just as easily fight along side the Canadian army, or even join it, when on Canadian soil fighting an aggressor, yet still turn on Canada when on foreign soil fighting Canadian aggression. Now of course this still doesn't deal with the issue of the German resistance in Nazi Germany since many of them were undermining their nation while on their own soil, but aware of the injustices of the Nazi regime. I suppose on that front, if Joe Smith is aware of injustices that the Canadian government is committing, at home or abroad, then is he a traitor if he should stand up against it? The question then is, should we fight for our nation, or fight for justice? Clearly the two are not always mutually incompatible. But when they are, then the question is important. The one fighting for justice will fight for his country only when it is compatible with justice, otherwise not. The one fighting for country will fight for justice only when compatible with fighting for country, otherwise not. This could also help to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism.

A patriot would turn his best friend, or even his own mother, in to the police, out of love for his friend or mother, in the hopes that the experience will make that person better. A nationalist will stand up for his best friend or mother even if it means they can get away with murder.

A true friend corrects the faults of his friends, and doe snot cover them up. A trure patriot corrects the faults of his country, and again, doe snot cover them up.

[Shwa]

Ahhh... this is a fundamental in Austrian economics.

I was thinking in terms of Canadian liberal philosophy. Aim for the middle ground!

'Better' is a collective discourse that doesn't lean towards the lowest common demoninator, but the highest of shared values which are expressed through many means, but for the purposes of this discussion, politically through elections.

At this point we are still the final arbiters in what we consider is to our benefit.

But you still are. I see no definite proof - from the imperfect communication of your needs thus far - that in anything you do, you have the full range of options at your disposal. Thus we approximate for "every" one using agency and institution to deliver as efficiently as possible given prevailing conditions.

Of course, those that ask for benefit from government are generally victims of some circumstance and wish relief, and the benefit government can provide often falls short of that goal.

I dunno about that. Governments on all levels control and share assets out in their constituencies for the benefit of the many, and sometimes the few. There is no victimology required for this. Just taxes.

The point must be realized that his need will be actively created is order for it to be demonstrated so some benefit can be realized.

But again, if there is no demonstration that "his need" can be accurately communicated (and one would think by now it would have been) then any active creation is mere approximation that lends itself to be vague enough to be relevant for a whole group of people. This occurs to me when I drive through the city and pass by some housing projects - approximations of need. No one would want to really live in them if they had a choice; these homes are not mansions. But they can be made into homes I suppose.

[maple_leafs182]

Canada is much like the old Mongolian empire - We did not stock pile gold and plunder - we stock piled people gathered from the four corners of the earth - we gathered the best talent - the best at all things - we are the richest nation on earth. We are the most powerful also - We do not need weapons like the Americans do (stay out of this one BC, I'm on a roll), We like the anient mongolians understand that gold is worthless - it is people that are the money...America still does not get this ---and that is why we dominate America - because though the brain drain that sent some of our best south - we kept the very best for ourselves - those not materially motivated..Canada has spirit!

I wish Canada had a soul, maybe we wouldn't be fighting in Afghanistan and we wouldn't allow people to freeze on the streets because they don't have paper in their pockets.

Canada was bought and sold a while ago.

Why do we split these states when their can only be one, United States of Eurasia.

One world, one people.

How many world wars will it take for us to learn.

Edited February 9, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[M.Dancer]

... and we wouldn't allow people to freeze on the streets because they don't have paper in their pockets.

You mean bring back the anti vagrancy laws and force people indoors?

[Oleg Bach]

Interesting. So it becomes quite difficult to discuss the notion of patriotism vs nationalism when people can all have such divergent views of the two. It always runs the risk of two people agreeing with one another but not realizing it just because they don't understand each other.

I guess at that stage, there needs to be a clearer definition of the two terms to ensure we can all understand. Sure different people will have differing definitions of these terms, but I suppose as long as they define the terms clearly enough, then it is possible to understand each other.

For example, if one defines patriotism quite simply as nothing more nor less than love for one's country, while this might be a simple definition, at least it makes it easier for a person to answer whether he's a patriot or not according to that definition.

Likewise, if we define nationalism as a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another, again, it's a short, straightforward definition. When we end up with paragraph-long definitions of these terms, we find end up finding it difficult to answer simply because the definition is just not so clear anymore. According to the simple definitions above, I can easily say I'm a patriot but not a nationalist. On the other hand, if their respective definitions become too convoluted, I sit there finding it difficult to answer either one just because it's not so clear what it really means anymore.

Patriots are fanatics...nationalists are members of a loyal group who care what the kids eat next week..