What does it mean to "love your country"?

[Brian Blackwell]

In the context of a country, freedom is absolutely granted. Look at the last 2000 years of human history and you will not find very many countries in which a person born to any family is granted equal freedom to pursue 'happiness'.

I get the practical, "de facto" description you've offered, but I think its important to draw a philosophical distinction between freedom being granted, and freedom not being violated. To say that freedom is granted is like saying a tax break is the government "giving" you money. They did not truly give you anything; they just refrained from taking part of what you already had.

I would suggest that freedom is inherent, and that what you call "granting" is just someone not violating that. This is an important distinction because it means that law, no matter how unimposing, is a violation of your inherent freedom. However, if you believe freedom is granted, then law, no matter how restrictive, is perfectly justified and you should be grateful for any wiggle-room between those restrictions. You can see how these two views would create drastically different societies.

 

[Moonglow]

Why should I love my country, what has it done for me?


I mean I had to do it all no country has paid my way in life...

 

[Correll]

What is meant by saying you love your country?

Does it mean you love:
-The government?
-The people inhabiting a particular area of land?
-The land itself?
-The culture (language, entertainment, beliefs, etc.)

All things considered, I don't believe there is anyone who would say they love any of these things in total, or to the exclusion of all other examples throughout the world. It seems reasonable to presume that there are things you like about your culture, for instance, and things that you do not like about it. But that could also be said about many other cultures. For instance, most people enjoy some of the food popular in their culture, but not all of them; but they also like some Italian foods, and not all of them. I think this could be said of any aspect of a "country" such that the expression does not seem to mean anything particular at all.

I suspect it may just refer to an emotional state that is connected with a nebulous notion of "the country". Precisely what constitutes the country is difficult to define. What do we really mean? Where does this idea come from? Did it originate within ourselves, or is it just something we picked up from the culture itself?

We are a group. YOu are part of that group. You benefit from being a member of that group.


Do you feel any gratitude? Duty to give back? Respect for those that make the group work to your benefit?


Or are you more of a Dead Weight freeloader?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why should I love my country, what has it done for me?


I mean I had to do it all no country has paid my way in life...

Imagine you'd been born in Somalia. Would you have reached the same level?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is meant by saying you love your country?

Does it mean you love:
-The government?
-The people inhabiting a particular area of land?
-The land itself?
-The culture (language, entertainment, beliefs, etc.)

All things considered, I don't believe there is anyone who would say they love any of these things in total, or to the exclusion of all other examples throughout the world. It seems reasonable to presume that there are things you like about your culture, for instance, and things that you do not like about it. But that could also be said about many other cultures. For instance, most people enjoy some of the food popular in their culture, but not all of them; but they also like some Italian foods, and not all of them. I think this could be said of any aspect of a "country" such that the expression does not seem to mean anything particular at all.

I suspect it may just refer to an emotional state that is connected with a nebulous notion of "the country". Precisely what constitutes the country is difficult to define. What do we really mean? Where does this idea come from? Did it originate within ourselves, or is it just something we picked up from the culture itself?

We are a group. YOu are part of that group. You benefit from being a member of that group.


Do you feel any gratitude? Duty to give back? Respect for those that make the group work to your benefit?


Or are you more of a Dead Weight freeloader?

Well, this works a lot of ways. Racism is being disrespectful to the group as much as freeloading is.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Not rocket science; simply means the American people as a group and the individual freedom we have developed and demanded here.

I'm not sure it's quite so simple when we get under the hood...

When you say "the American people", who do you mean specifically? It is not a race of people, as many different races live in this "country". It is not the people on a particular patch of land, as the borders have changed over the years. It is not the specific governmental law, as laws have also changed drastically. Isn't it really just the people existing under a particular ruling class? If our ruling class takes over Mexico tomorrow, then Mexicans are now "American people".

Did we "develop" individual freedom, or is freedom inherent, and our ruling class simply set out with the intention to violate it less than previous ruling classes? When you say we "demand" individual freedom, from who do we demand it? Who has the right to grant it, or withhold it, such that we must demand it from them? What is their valid claim to this "right"?

 

[Correll]

What is meant by saying you love your country?

Does it mean you love:
-The government?
-The people inhabiting a particular area of land?
-The land itself?
-The culture (language, entertainment, beliefs, etc.)

All things considered, I don't believe there is anyone who would say they love any of these things in total, or to the exclusion of all other examples throughout the world. It seems reasonable to presume that there are things you like about your culture, for instance, and things that you do not like about it. But that could also be said about many other cultures. For instance, most people enjoy some of the food popular in their culture, but not all of them; but they also like some Italian foods, and not all of them. I think this could be said of any aspect of a "country" such that the expression does not seem to mean anything particular at all.

I suspect it may just refer to an emotional state that is connected with a nebulous notion of "the country". Precisely what constitutes the country is difficult to define. What do we really mean? Where does this idea come from? Did it originate within ourselves, or is it just something we picked up from the culture itself?

We are a group. YOu are part of that group. You benefit from being a member of that group.


Do you feel any gratitude? Duty to give back? Respect for those that make the group work to your benefit?


Or are you more of a Dead Weight freeloader?

Well, this works a lot of ways. Racism is being disrespectful to the group as much as freeloading is.

Identifying and dealing with Freeloaders is a fundamental requirement of any healthy and sustainable group.


Self identification, such as defining "anti-racism" is a far more optional choice.


Plenty of groups, have survived for thousands of years with certain sub groups, being relegated to low status, see India and the Untouchables.

 

[Correll]

Not rocket science; simply means the American people as a group and the individual freedom we have developed and demanded here.

I'm not sure it's quite so simple when we get under the hood...

When you say "the American people", who do you mean specifically? It is not a race of people, as many different races live in this "country". It is not the people on a particular patch of land, as the borders have changed over the years. It is not the specific governmental law, as laws have also changed drastically. Isn't it really just the people existing under a particular ruling class? If our ruling class takes over Mexico tomorrow, then Mexicans are now "American people".

Did we "develop" individual freedom, or is freedom inherent, and our ruling class simply set out with the intention to violate it less than previous ruling classes? When you say we "demand" individual freedom, from who do we demand it? Who has the right to grant it, or withhold it, such that we must demand it from them? What is their valid claim to this "right"?

YOu are quibbling to avoid a very broad point.


IN such a large group, there are of course, questions about who is in, and who is out.


Do you consider yourself "in"?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

If you need to ask you probably...

A- Don't love your country for whatever reason.
B- Have never been to another one to compare them.

I don't accept that asking for clarification necessarily implies any of that. I'm asking people to clearly define what they mean when they say this. It's no more than each person should ask of themselves.

 

[Correll]

If you need to ask you probably...

A- Don't love your country for whatever reason.
B- Have never been to another one to compare them.

I don't accept that asking for clarification necessarily implies any of that. I'm asking people to clearly define what they mean when they say this. It's no more than each person should ask of themselves.

Are you seriously attempting clarification, or attempting argue against the concept?

 

[The Original Tree]

For Democrats it means helping to promote Russian Propaganda and to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.

For me, it means to uphold my Constitutional Rights, respect my country, its constitution and flag, and the principles it is founded upon and defend it and it's people with my life if need be.

 

[Moonglow]

Why should I love my country, what has it done for me?


I mean I had to do it all no country has paid my way in life...

Imagine you'd been born in Somalia. Would you have reached the same level?

Sure why not?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Not rocket science; simply means the American people as a group and the individual freedom we have developed and demanded here.

I'm not sure it's quite so simple when we get under the hood...

When you say "the American people", who do you mean specifically? It is not a race of people, as many different races live in this "country". It is not the people on a particular patch of land, as the borders have changed over the years. It is not the specific governmental law, as laws have also changed drastically. Isn't it really just the people existing under a particular ruling class? If our ruling class takes over Mexico tomorrow, then Mexicans are now "American people".

Did we "develop" individual freedom, or is freedom inherent, and our ruling class simply set out with the intention to violate it less than previous ruling classes? When you say we "demand" individual freedom, from who do we demand it? Who has the right to grant it, or withhold it, such that we must demand it from them? What is their valid claim to this "right"?

YOu are quibbling to avoid a very broad point.


IN such a large group, there are of course, questions about who is in, and who is out.


Do you consider yourself "in"?

I am asking what is meant by the word "country" in this context.

There are differences in culture (for instance, I may desire to visit France for its differences in language, food, architecture, etc.), and we may use the word "country" to mean this, but that is a very different context. When people say they love their country, they don't typically mean they love hamburgers and the Grand Canyon, though they may also love those things.

The only definition I see as viable in this context is "the territory of a particular ruling class". Obviously, when a person says they love their country, they specifically mean this territory, and not a foot beyond. That means it is intrinsically linked with the ruling class and its dictates overall; not the land, not the people, and not even the specifics of that ruling class or its dictates. It means you love living under the rule of that particular group.

As such, no, I do not consider myself "in" because I do not recognize the validity of the claim that establishes the ruling class. I see no distinction between this "country" and others such that it warrants my loving one and not loving another. And I certainly do not love living under anyone's invalid rule, regardless of the specifics, and feel no allegiance to one particular band of immoral dominators, their symbology, their documents, or anything else having to do with them.

I love people. I love those aspects of culture most noble and wondrous, regardless of which patch of land they are associated with. I love the non-human inhabitants of the planet, and the planet itself. I love our inherent freedom, and the gifts of the body and spirit. But I do not love any particular slave plantation, or its masters who seek to control, exploit, and ravage these things I love because that would be antithetical to the love itself.

I absolutely want to cooperate, organize, pay my fair share, contribute my labor, and share the resources of the land - but not under threat of violence.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Are you seriously attempting clarification, or attempting argue against the concept?

I'm asking people to thoroughly question their assumptions. I'm also willing to express my own views, which are in opposition to the concept as generally conceived (nationalism), but the real purpose of the thread is to critically evaluate the idea of "love of country".

 

[Correll]

Not rocket science; simply means the American people as a group and the individual freedom we have developed and demanded here.

I'm not sure it's quite so simple when we get under the hood...

When you say "the American people", who do you mean specifically? It is not a race of people, as many different races live in this "country". It is not the people on a particular patch of land, as the borders have changed over the years. It is not the specific governmental law, as laws have also changed drastically. Isn't it really just the people existing under a particular ruling class? If our ruling class takes over Mexico tomorrow, then Mexicans are now "American people".

Did we "develop" individual freedom, or is freedom inherent, and our ruling class simply set out with the intention to violate it less than previous ruling classes? When you say we "demand" individual freedom, from who do we demand it? Who has the right to grant it, or withhold it, such that we must demand it from them? What is their valid claim to this "right"?

YOu are quibbling to avoid a very broad point.


IN such a large group, there are of course, questions about who is in, and who is out.


Do you consider yourself "in"?

I am asking what is meant by the word "country" in this context.

There are differences in culture (for instance, I may desire to visit France for its differences in language, food, architecture, etc.), and we may use the word "country" to mean this, but that is a very different context. When people say they love their country, they don't typically mean they love hamburgers and the Grand Canyon, though they may also love those things.

The only definition I see as viable in this context is "the territory of a particular ruling class". Obviously, when a person says they love their country, they specifically mean this territory, and not a foot beyond. That means it is intrinsically linked with the ruling class and its dictates overall; not the land, not the people, and not even the specifics of that ruling class or its dictates. It means you love living under the rule of that particular group.

As such, no, I do not consider myself "in" because I do not recognize the validity of the claim that establishes the ruling class. I see no distinction between this "country" and others such that it warrants my loving one and not loving another. And I certainly do not love living under anyone's invalid rule, regardless of the specifics, and feel no allegiance to one particular band of immoral dominators, their symbology, their documents, or anything else having to do with them.

I love people. I love those aspects of culture most noble and wondrous, regardless of which patch of land they are associated with. I love the non-human inhabitants of the planet, and the planet itself. I love our inherent freedom, and the gifts of the body and spirit. But I do not love any particular slave plantation, or its masters who seek to control, exploit, and ravage these things I love because that would be antithetical to the love itself.

I absolutely want to cooperate, organize, pay my fair share, contribute my labor, and share the resources of the land - but not under threat of violence.

The threat of violence is inherent in any group, serious enough that labor and resources are being created and shared.

That in inherent in the definition of human.

 

[Correll]

Are you seriously attempting clarification, or attempting argue against the concept?

I'm asking people to thoroughly question their assumptions. I'm also willing to express my own views, which are in opposition to the concept as generally conceived (nationalism), but the real purpose of the thread is to critically evaluate the idea of "love of country".

Why?

 

[Mac1958]

Some people love their country, period, and others love what it would be if they could completely "change" and "fundamentally transform" it.

Not so sure I'd consider that second one "loving your country".

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Not rocket science; simply means the American people as a group and the individual freedom we have developed and demanded here.

I'm not sure it's quite so simple when we get under the hood...

When you say "the American people", who do you mean specifically? It is not a race of people, as many different races live in this "country". It is not the people on a particular patch of land, as the borders have changed over the years. It is not the specific governmental law, as laws have also changed drastically. Isn't it really just the people existing under a particular ruling class? If our ruling class takes over Mexico tomorrow, then Mexicans are now "American people".

Did we "develop" individual freedom, or is freedom inherent, and our ruling class simply set out with the intention to violate it less than previous ruling classes? When you say we "demand" individual freedom, from who do we demand it? Who has the right to grant it, or withhold it, such that we must demand it from them? What is their valid claim to this "right"?

YOu are quibbling to avoid a very broad point.


IN such a large group, there are of course, questions about who is in, and who is out.


Do you consider yourself "in"?

I am asking what is meant by the word "country" in this context.

There are differences in culture (for instance, I may desire to visit France for its differences in language, food, architecture, etc.), and we may use the word "country" to mean this, but that is a very different context. When people say they love their country, they don't typically mean they love hamburgers and the Grand Canyon, though they may also love those things.

The only definition I see as viable in this context is "the territory of a particular ruling class". Obviously, when a person says they love their country, they specifically mean this territory, and not a foot beyond. That means it is intrinsically linked with the ruling class and its dictates overall; not the land, not the people, and not even the specifics of that ruling class or its dictates. It means you love living under the rule of that particular group.

As such, no, I do not consider myself "in" because I do not recognize the validity of the claim that establishes the ruling class. I see no distinction between this "country" and others such that it warrants my loving one and not loving another. And I certainly do not love living under anyone's invalid rule, regardless of the specifics, and feel no allegiance to one particular band of immoral dominators, their symbology, their documents, or anything else having to do with them.

I love people. I love those aspects of culture most noble and wondrous, regardless of which patch of land they are associated with. I love the non-human inhabitants of the planet, and the planet itself. I love our inherent freedom, and the gifts of the body and spirit. But I do not love any particular slave plantation, or its masters who seek to control, exploit, and ravage these things I love because that would be antithetical to the love itself.

I absolutely want to cooperate, organize, pay my fair share, contribute my labor, and share the resources of the land - but not under threat of violence.

The threat of violence is inherent in any group, serious enough that labor and resources are being created and shared.

That in inherent in the definition of human.

The majority of humanity is willing to relegate use of force to defensive applications only. That's why we can walk through a mall and not get attacked every five seconds. The fact that some choose to initiate aggressive violence does not justify the aforementioned majority also doing so by proxy. In other words, supporting and leveraging the power of the state to rob your neighbors so funding can be directed to those things you deem important is just as immoral as doing it yourself. Would you go to his house and rob him? No? Then don't ask (vote) for someone else to do it.

I'm not denying that immoral violence exists, I'm simply taking the position that I will not partake in it myself and asking others to do the same. As luck would have it, those who have no regard for fundamental morality are such a minority that the rest of us can handle them easily in an armed, free society. From that basis, we can cooperate voluntarily to meet the challenges of life on this planet.

It is only the willingness of the unthinking to hand their self-ownership over to a fallacious authority that has the world in disarray. Imagine a Stalin with no troops. He'd fall in line with the rest of moral humanity, get shot trying to do otherwise, or be cast off into the wilderness for being an unrelenting nuisance. His ability to slaughter tens of millions was entirely rooted in the false belief in governmental authority.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I'm asking people to thoroughly question their assumptions. I'm also willing to express my own views, which are in opposition to the concept as generally conceived (nationalism), but the real purpose of the thread is to critically evaluate the idea of "love of country".

Why?

Because unchallenged assumptions are the root of much, if not all, evil.

 

[Correll]

Not rocket science; simply means the American people as a group and the individual freedom we have developed and demanded here.

I'm not sure it's quite so simple when we get under the hood...

When you say "the American people", who do you mean specifically? It is not a race of people, as many different races live in this "country". It is not the people on a particular patch of land, as the borders have changed over the years. It is not the specific governmental law, as laws have also changed drastically. Isn't it really just the people existing under a particular ruling class? If our ruling class takes over Mexico tomorrow, then Mexicans are now "American people".

Did we "develop" individual freedom, or is freedom inherent, and our ruling class simply set out with the intention to violate it less than previous ruling classes? When you say we "demand" individual freedom, from who do we demand it? Who has the right to grant it, or withhold it, such that we must demand it from them? What is their valid claim to this "right"?

YOu are quibbling to avoid a very broad point.


IN such a large group, there are of course, questions about who is in, and who is out.


Do you consider yourself "in"?

I am asking what is meant by the word "country" in this context.

There are differences in culture (for instance, I may desire to visit France for its differences in language, food, architecture, etc.), and we may use the word "country" to mean this, but that is a very different context. When people say they love their country, they don't typically mean they love hamburgers and the Grand Canyon, though they may also love those things.

The only definition I see as viable in this context is "the territory of a particular ruling class". Obviously, when a person says they love their country, they specifically mean this territory, and not a foot beyond. That means it is intrinsically linked with the ruling class and its dictates overall; not the land, not the people, and not even the specifics of that ruling class or its dictates. It means you love living under the rule of that particular group.

As such, no, I do not consider myself "in" because I do not recognize the validity of the claim that establishes the ruling class. I see no distinction between this "country" and others such that it warrants my loving one and not loving another. And I certainly do not love living under anyone's invalid rule, regardless of the specifics, and feel no allegiance to one particular band of immoral dominators, their symbology, their documents, or anything else having to do with them.

I love people. I love those aspects of culture most noble and wondrous, regardless of which patch of land they are associated with. I love the non-human inhabitants of the planet, and the planet itself. I love our inherent freedom, and the gifts of the body and spirit. But I do not love any particular slave plantation, or its masters who seek to control, exploit, and ravage these things I love because that would be antithetical to the love itself.

I absolutely want to cooperate, organize, pay my fair share, contribute my labor, and share the resources of the land - but not under threat of violence.

The threat of violence is inherent in any group, serious enough that labor and resources are being created and shared.

That in inherent in the definition of human.

The majority of humanity is willing to relegate use of force to defensive applications only. .....

Incorrect. EVERY nation in the world, taxes and backs that taxing up with force and the threat of force.


Try to not contribute to the Group, by not paying your taxes. You will, sooner or later, find that society uses force against non contributers.