Patriotism and the Nation-State

[Laize]

Perhaps I disagree with some of the reasons. I find Oriental-style governments are generally more effective at crisis resolution.

It was an observation of the Founding Fathers (and one we've proven to be true, unfortunately) that government has a tendency to expand its own power. That's the entire reason the Constitution started out as a list of explicit things the federal government was allowed to do (and anything not in that list was verboten).

While a small government can't ensure that no one is ever in need (as a large government could), a small government also cannot take away your right to privacy, a fair trial or any other abridgments of freedom. The former is an acceptable sacrifice for the latter.

Jefferson said it best when he said "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

[Nask]

Looks like you jumped to another forum to spew your bullshit after you got banned from Facepunch, you never stop do you? Looking through your post history seems like you tuned your bullshit down a little here, afraid of getting banned again so you can't spread your shit all over here?


Infracted.

[Elegiac]

It was an observation of the Founding Fathers (and one we've proven to be true, unfortunately) that government has a tendency to expand its own power. That's the entire reason the Constitution started out as a list of explicit things the federal government was allowed to do (and anything not in that list was verboten).

While a small government can't ensure that no one is ever in need (as a large government could), a small government also cannot take away your right to privacy, a fair trial or any other abridgments of freedom. The former is an acceptable sacrifice for the latter.

In your opinion. To me, having studied history and seen the repeated failure of 'small government', I would rather toss my lot in with the Oriental model of despotic monarchy and its descendants (i.e. centralized governments)

[Elegiac]

I don't like the poll.

I'm American, and yes I do in general support my nation, but I don't and will never, support it blindly.

And what's with the hate on "liberal"? Just because someone is left-wing doesn't mean they don't support their nation, rather, many like myself, actually form an opinion about the things the nation is doing, and do not blindly support it.

It's a dirty word to the uneducated. To the educated, it is a word with many variations in meaning. One can be a liberal Republican, for instance.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 12:05 PM ----------

Right, which is why the U.S. uses a Federalist system of governing. The only problem is, finding the right balance of power between state and federal governments.

And funnily enough, the government the Founders put together was insufficient to deal with internal crises. Hence the shift from dual federalism to shared federalism.

[Laize]

In your opinion. To me, having studied history and seen the repeated failure of 'small government', I would rather toss my lot in with the Oriental model of despotic monarchy and its descendants (i.e. centralized governments)

Define what constitutes a "failure" in government and we can begin this discussion.

[Kasierith]

In your opinion. To me, having studied history and seen the repeated failure of 'small government', I would rather toss my lot in with the Oriental model of despotic monarchy and its descendants (i.e. centralized governments)

An enlightened oligarchy is the way to go; a monarchy puts too much on one line, which as we can see from the Khans is ultimately a bad thing.

[Elegiac]

Define what constitutes a "failure" in government and we can begin this discussion.

An inability to deal with domestic or external crisis necessitating a strong hand at the wheel.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 12:08 PM ----------

An enlightened oligarchy is the way to go; a monarchy puts too much on one line, which as we can see from the Khans is ultimately a bad thing.

I know, what I mean by 'despotic monarchy' in this case refers to a vein of governments in the Oriental fashion; more centralized, authoritarian, unitary, etc.

[Elegiac]

Which is why the government defined by the Articles of Confederation ultimately failed, and a government defined by the Constitution came to be.

And even that government failed, as seen during the Civil War and the Great Depression, and even during the Civil Rights movement. The US is no longer the Mediterranean federal state it was at its founding, it is now growing increasingly akin to a European centralized Republic (not quickly enough for my liking, however. FORCE THE PROCESS.)

[jetriot]

In your opinion. To me, having studied history and seen the repeated failure of 'small government', I would rather toss my lot in with the Oriental model of despotic monarchy and its descendants (i.e. centralized governments)

Give one example of a country with limited government and an educated populace failing in the last 300 years. Because I can give you many examples of big government countries with educated populations failing.

[larrakeyah]

Because I can give you many examples of big government countries with educated populations failing.

Look no far than Europe. Some countries are warming up for the goose step.

[Elegiac]

Give one example of a country with limited government and an educated populace failing in the last 300 years. Because I can give you many examples of big government countries with educated populations failing.

An 'educated populace'? No such country has ever existed or will ever exist. The majority of the population of any state is unconcerned with higher ideals, and too focused on the business of simply existing.

It depends what is meant by 'failure'. As I elaborated in another thread, what tends to happen is that smaller governments tend to appeal to the Oriental model and centralize power in order to deal with a crisis, whether it is Rome under Augustus or the United States under Lincoln or Roosevelt.

[Deleted]

Why would you think that support for the European Union would go hand in hand with opposition to one's own country?

I was thinking the same question.
And I don't think patriotism is evil, but I do think it can lead to bad things. (Nazi-Germany for example)
Its like a lot of things, a bit is ok, but to much is a very bad thing.

[Stir]

Look no far than Europe. Some countries are warming up for the goose step.

Or, for that matter, Australia, which is the world's leader in low average IQ.
See? I can do this stuff too!

[Elegiac]

While it would be good, for some aspects to be akin to a European centralized Republic, unless this change is extremely gradual (Which it seems it is), how would the States let such a thing happen? Not to mention the people, many here are terrified of a large central government.

Fun fact; the things that people complain 'should be the province of the states' is in fact legally their province. They could take back power at any time they wished.

But they don't, for a very important reason. The Federal government can appropriate a much vaster sum of monies than any single state can.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 12:15 PM ----------

Or, for that matter, Australia, which is the world's leader in low average IQ.
See? I can do this stuff too!

The average IQ is by definition 100.

[Cybran]

Wait... who is oppressing who now? Only country to downright Opress Islam was India... and Israel until a party switch is changed.

The Muslims did the opression in the Balkans. Sold us as animals.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...9863/blood-tax

"The conquered are slaves of the conquerors, to whom their goods, their women, and their children belong as lawful possession.." - Kara Khalil Chendereli, founder of the Janissaries

[larrakeyah]

Or, for that matter, Australia, which is the world's leader in low average IQ.
See? I can do this stuff too!

Sure mate, but stop emigrating down under please.

[Stir]

Sure mate, but stop emigrating down under please.

Why? I rather like Australia.
My point was that blind negative statements can be made about every place, and that, therefore, your statement was hypocritical.

[smelltheglove]

As you may have noticed, many liberals have been attacking the idea of patriotism. They argue that there is no logical reason to support the nation-state and that patriotism is "evil," because it promotes the idea that America is "better" than other countries.

i dont hear anybody attack patriotism. i see people object to rabid nationalism, and the ability of you and people like you to differentiate the 2 is the biggest problem with the US today imo. the most important thing the founders did is the one thing the modern right wing is just fundamentally unable to grasp: they recognized that things change, and set things up so that our country could change to suit its needs for any given time or situation

[Elegiac]

The Muslims did the opression in the Balkans. Sold us as animals.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...9863/blood-tax

"The conquered are slaves of the conquerors, to whom their goods, their women, and their children belong as lawful possession.." - Kara Khalil Chendereli, founder of the Janissaries

So did the Romans, the Greeks, etc. There is a reason the word Slave and Slav are cognates.

[Laize]

An inability to deal with domestic or external crisis necessitating a strong hand at the wheel.

So... the Civil War?

The question regarding dual vs shared Federalism is not "Should the states be allowed to do whatever they want without the Federal government telling them no". The question is "Does the Federal government have unlimited authority to tell the states what to do?"

The problem is that no one seems to respect the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. It's the law that everyone looks and says "Boy that sure is an amendment. Let's look more closely at a single sentence in the Articles and use it to undermine that entire thing."

The Constitution is supposed to be a limiter on what the federal government is and is not allowed to do.

No one is denying that a strong central government to bind the states together is a good thing. But the general welfare and commerce clauses have been used as carte blanche to do everything from build a national highway (not objectionable) to the NDAA and warrantless wiretapping (a blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment).

We're saying that a strong central government attempting to treat 320 million people as if they're all the same is a load of shit, and even the Founding Fathers knew it. A strong central government does not have to be a LARGE central government.