What does it mean to "love your country"?

[Correll]

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.

What assumptions have you made, that lead you to be opposed to the current concept of nationalism?

 

[g5000]

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?

I see you are not wearing a flag pin.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The premise of the up is funny. Why ask a question such as this which is beyond trivial.

It questions the validity of the nationalistic position, which is important to consider, since much is rooted in this bias. For instance, if a foreign government was marching down our streets and blowing up our homes under the guise of helping us, or defending freedom, we would be outraged. However this very same action, when performed by our own government in foreign lands, is deemed acceptable by many because they see "us" as the "good guys", largely because of this dubious notion of "country". People are outraged by 9/11, but justify Hiroshima all day long. Why are we less outraged when our government does something than when any other country does it?

What is a "country"? I don't know that many flag-wavers have ever asked this question, no less arrived at a satisfying answer. What makes this side of an arbitrary border any different than the other side? What makes our people fundamentally different than any other people? The "country" is really nothing more than the territory of one particular ruling class - one which nearly everyone is at least partially unsatisfied with. This hardly seems something to "love". And to say you love this country usually implies that you love it more than other countries; and this is certainly true in practice, as mentioned above. But do you really love all 300 million people on this particular patch of land more than all the people in other countries? By looking at these forums, I'd say that there are many in this country that you don't love, and could probably find many in other countries that you would love more. So is this bias justified? What is its logical basis?

If it's not the government, it's not the people, and the land itself is not essentially different than anywhere else, then what is it exactly that you love when you say you love your country? I don't think these questions are trivial at all, as they have significant ramifications, particularly in matters of foreign policy.

We (Americans) love our country because it is OUR country. We (as a group that includes our ancestors) made this Nation. We formed her Constitution. We made the laws we live by. We have a government that we made and is intended to serve the people instead of the other way around and we realize we are responsible for what our country does. We work hard and sacrifice much for our fellow Americans. We realize that as a nation we are not perfect, never have been, never will be but we don't let that stop us from trying to be.
As far as I am concerned America is made up of those of us who love our country and the remainder who are ungrateful irresponsible immature assholes who leech off the rest of us.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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"?

People love their country in they same way they may love their family which may also change in make up and location.
There are no such things as inherent rights or freedom. Any rights and individual freedoms you may have are in fact demands that people have been willing to kill or die to obtain and maintain. Despite what some may think in America "We the People" are the ruling class.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We (Americans) love our country because it is OUR country. We (as a group that includes our ancestors) made this Nation. We formed her Constitution. We made the laws we live by. We have a government that we made and is intended to serve the people instead of the other way around and we realize we are responsible for what our country does. We work hard and sacrifice much for our fellow Americans. We realize that as a nation we are not perfect, never have been, never will be but we don't let that stop us from trying to be.
As far as I am concerned America is made up of those of us who love our country and the remainder who are ungrateful irresponsible immature assholes who leech off the rest of us.

I appreciate your loyalty and passion, and think you would make a fine member of a truly free society, though I question the lucidity of what you've said here.

This "we" you refer to is a mental construct. Any group I choose to associate with from beyond the time of my birth is a rather arbitrary choice that I have made. No different then choosing to become Jewish, then talking about "We (Jews) have been doing XYZ for thousands of years". The "we" is just an act of imagination. To illustrate this, I can disassociate myself from the "we" with equal validity. I could say "I wasn't alive during the ol' slavery days, so don't lump me in with those people" and who could argue that? So this "we" is an opt-in/opt-out choice we're making in our own minds.

Even the "we" of today is an illusion. What do I have to do with some guy living halfway across the country that I've never met? About the same as with some guy halfway around the world in another country. And why is the guy in northern Washington state part of my "we", but the guy a few miles away in Canada not part of it? Because an imaginary line that people made up before I was born says so? This is an odd rationale, is it not? We must recognize that we're just creating a story in our own head when we say these things.

Despite the intent, the government does not - and cannot - serve the people. For a government to BE a government, it must have authority. By definition, this means the people serve the government, not the other way around. Masters make rules, slaves obey rules; is this not correct? Well, who makes the rules? Who is to obey? You can say that we pick who the master is, and that the master provides benefits to the slaves, but that doesn't change the nature of the relationship. Providing benefits at your own discretion is not serving. You can say that the master himself is subject to his own rules, but so what? He's still the one making them up, and you're not (and in reality, we know that politicians are largely above the law in practical terms; even their agents are - police and military - in the overwhelming majority of cases).

We're responsible for what our country does? I agree, but is that really the prevalent paradigm? Seems to me that people get more upset about their kid getting a note home for acting up in class than they do about their government committing acts of mass atrocity. They may say, "yeah, it's bad what they did to all those innocent people in Nagasaki, Iraq, etc." but they're not losing any sleep over it. If they truly felt responsible, they would be mortified. No, I think it's more like we want government to use it's big stick to bang people over the head on our behalf and say they owe us that service, but when they club the wrong person we just step back and feel no responsibility whatsoever. If we did, then we would feel 9/11 was justified, as there would be no such thing as an "innocent American" after what "we" have done in Middle Eastern countries.

As for being ungrateful, I'm not sure what you want people to be grateful for. I suspect it's for not being more harshly dominated than they are. At least that's what I gather when I hear people say "try living in Somalia - we have the best government in the world". Sounds to me like living on a more comfortable plantation equates to freedom in most people's minds. As if freedom was relative and had degrees. Freedom does not have degrees. You are free, or you are not. Only slavery has degrees; and we are living in free-range, partial slavery under a government that claims rights which no individual has. They can tax me, but I can't tax them. They can make laws for me, but I can't make laws for them. That is not equality, that is not freedom, and that is nothing to be grateful for.

I'm grateful for truly cooperative people who understand freedom and voluntary interaction. I'm even grateful for the fundamental desire to be moral present within all the misguided people who support institutionalized violence thinking they're being good, responsible human beings. At least they're not truly evil, as that would make the situation hopeless. At least now, they need only realize how their support of government conflicts with their own morality to snap out of it; which is happening slowly, but in ever-increasing numbers.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

People love their country in they same way they may love their family which may also change in make up and location.There are no such things as inherent rights or freedom. Any rights and individual freedoms you may have are in fact demands that people have been willing to kill or die to obtain and maintain. Despite what some may think in America "We the People" are the ruling class.

There is no such thing as inherent rights or freedom? Then you do not subscribe to the ideas at the foundation of this country you claim to love, such as:


"...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."


I think you are confusing defending rights with obtaining rights.

 

[MarathonMike]

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.

I am saying that for the vast majority of humans, the freedoms you have or don't have are defined by the country you are born into. To a lesser extent your family status might afford you freedoms within an oppressive country such as being part of Kim Jung Un's inner circle.
Outside of that, the only true freemen are those rare individuals who can survive on their own, off grid and in the wild. For the rest of us we are dependent on the infrastructure and services a country provides us and in exchange that country sets the rules for us and taxes us and defines what freedoms we have.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I am saying that for the vast majority of humans, the freedoms you have or don't have are defined by the country you are born into. To a lesser extent your family status might afford you freedoms within an oppressive country such as being part of Kim Jung Un's inner circle.
Outside of that, the only true freemen are those rare individuals who can survive on their own, off grid and in the wild. For the rest of us we are dependent on the infrastructure and services a country provides us and in exchange that country sets the rules for us and taxes us and defines what freedoms we have.

This is largely a very accurate description of what is (aside from the implication that we must trade involuntary obedience and servitude for infrastructure and services). Now the question becomes: What do you think about that? Is it valid, moral, necessary for it to be this way? Because you make a choice everyday whether or not to support this system.

Let’s just look at taxation... Couldn’t we have a system of voluntary contribution? After all, if there aren’t enough people willing to pay for something, doesn’t that mean there is insufficient demand to warrant supply? The free market makes millions of products available that are not essential to a reasonably comfortable life (rice cookers, bobble heads, sneakers with lights in them, etc.); so if demand is sufficient to support the supply of these things, would it not be sufficient to supply essential necessities like roads, clean water, protection, etc.?

And wouldn’t a free market result in better products and services at lower costs? If a protection agency choked an unarmed man in the streets on camera, resulting in his death, they would quickly be out of business. And we all know that government is highly inefficient and wasteful because they have no competition, and no accountability; people must pay or they get thrown in a cage. Businesses do not have this luxury.

 

[Correll]

I am saying that for the vast majority of humans, the freedoms you have or don't have are defined by the country you are born into. To a lesser extent your family status might afford you freedoms within an oppressive country such as being part of Kim Jung Un's inner circle.
Outside of that, the only true freemen are those rare individuals who can survive on their own, off grid and in the wild. For the rest of us we are dependent on the infrastructure and services a country provides us and in exchange that country sets the rules for us and taxes us and defines what freedoms we have.

This is largely a very accurate description of what is (aside from the implication that we must trade involuntary obedience and servitude for infrastructure and services). Now the question becomes: What do you think about that? Is it valid, moral, necessary for it to be this way? Because you make a choice everyday whether or not to support this system.

Let’s just look at taxation... Couldn’t we have a system of voluntary contribution? After all, if there aren’t enough people willing to pay for something, doesn’t that mean there is insufficient demand to warrant supply? The free market makes millions of products available that are not essential to a reasonably comfortable life (rice cookers, bobble heads, sneakers with lights in them, etc.); so if demand is sufficient to support the supply of these things, would it not be sufficient to supply essential necessities like roads, clean water, protection, etc.?

And wouldn’t a free market result in better products and services at lower costs? If a protection agency choked an unarmed man in the streets on camera, resulting in his death, they would quickly be out of business. And we all know that government is highly inefficient and wasteful because they have no competition, and no accountability; people must pay or they get thrown in a cage. Businesses do not have this luxury.

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.


A business cannot fill that role.

 

[Issa]

The open minded Americans...not the racist ones.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Despite the intent, the government does not - and cannot - serve the people. For a government to BE a government, it must have authority. By definition, this means the people serve the government, not the other way around. Masters make rules, slaves obey rules; is this not correct?

In America the ultimate authority is the Constitution. The government(s) and the military are sworn to protect and defend it.
The Constitution exists to define and limit governmental authority. When we swear allegiance we swear to the flag; not the government.

As for being ungrateful, I'm not sure what you want people to be grateful for. I suspect it's for not being more harshly dominated than they are. At least that's what I gather when I hear people say "try living in Somalia - we have the best government in the world".

Those Americans who came before you made this Country and passed it into your care. Certainly something to be grateful for. You have made it very clear that you are totally clueless when it comes to concepts like slavery and oppression freedom and rights. Hence the Somalia references.

Freedom does not have degrees .

Untrue. There is no such thing as totally unrestricted freedom nor should there be. I think that it's kinda nice that people are not free to murder whomever they please whenever they please.

 

[MarathonMike]

I am saying that for the vast majority of humans, the freedoms you have or don't have are defined by the country you are born into. To a lesser extent your family status might afford you freedoms within an oppressive country such as being part of Kim Jung Un's inner circle.
Outside of that, the only true freemen are those rare individuals who can survive on their own, off grid and in the wild. For the rest of us we are dependent on the infrastructure and services a country provides us and in exchange that country sets the rules for us and taxes us and defines what freedoms we have.

This is largely a very accurate description of what is (aside from the implication that we must trade involuntary obedience and servitude for infrastructure and services). Now the question becomes: What do you think about that? Is it valid, moral, necessary for it to be this way? Because you make a choice everyday whether or not to support this system.

Let’s just look at taxation... Couldn’t we have a system of voluntary contribution? After all, if there aren’t enough people willing to pay for something, doesn’t that mean there is insufficient demand to warrant supply? The free market makes millions of products available that are not essential to a reasonably comfortable life (rice cookers, bobble heads, sneakers with lights in them, etc.); so if demand is sufficient to support the supply of these things, would it not be sufficient to supply essential necessities like roads, clean water, protection, etc.?

And wouldn’t a free market result in better products and services at lower costs? If a protection agency choked an unarmed man in the streets on camera, resulting in his death, they would quickly be out of business. And we all know that government is highly inefficient and wasteful because they have no competition, and no accountability; people must pay or they get thrown in a cage. Businesses do not have this luxury.

Unless you are talking about a very primitive society such as an American Indian tribe in the 16th century the idea of voluntary contribution is IMO not feasible. I fully agree that in the case of the US, our government has far deviated from the original intention of the Constitution. It is very bloated largely due to complete lack of oversight and accountability. But I am a pragmatist and never expect perfection out of anything or anyone. I just hope for 'really good'.

To answer your question about whether the "contract" between country and individual is valid, moral and necessary I would say Yes, N/A and Yes. I don't see it being moral or immoral for the leaders of a country to have requirements and expectations of it's citizens. Even in a primitive tribe there would be expectations levied upon you unless you are too weak or disabled to contribute to the tribe.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I am saying that for the vast majority of humans, the freedoms you have or don't have are defined by the country you are born into. To a lesser extent your family status might afford you freedoms within an oppressive country such as being part of Kim Jung Un's inner circle.
Outside of that, the only true freemen are those rare individuals who can survive on their own, off grid and in the wild. For the rest of us we are dependent on the infrastructure and services a country provides us and in exchange that country sets the rules for us and taxes us and defines what freedoms we have.

This is largely a very accurate description of what is (aside from the implication that we must trade involuntary obedience and servitude for infrastructure and services). Now the question becomes: What do you think about that? Is it valid, moral, necessary for it to be this way? Because you make a choice everyday whether or not to support this system.

Let’s just look at taxation... Couldn’t we have a system of voluntary contribution? After all, if there aren’t enough people willing to pay for something, doesn’t that mean there is insufficient demand to warrant supply? The free market makes millions of products available that are not essential to a reasonably comfortable life (rice cookers, bobble heads, sneakers with lights in them, etc.); so if demand is sufficient to support the supply of these things, would it not be sufficient to supply essential necessities like roads, clean water, protection, etc.?

And wouldn’t a free market result in better products and services at lower costs? If a protection agency choked an unarmed man in the streets on camera, resulting in his death, they would quickly be out of business. And we all know that government is highly inefficient and wasteful because they have no competition, and no accountability; people must pay or they get thrown in a cage. Businesses do not have this luxury.

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.


A business cannot fill that role.

Take what? Could you give an example?

 

[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?

Sure why not?

Do I really need to explain this?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Despite the intent, the government does not - and cannot - serve the people. For a government to BE a government, it must have authority. By definition, this means the people serve the government, not the other way around. Masters make rules, slaves obey rules; is this not correct?

In America the ultimate authority is the Constitution. The government(s) and the military are sworn to protect and defend it.
The Constitution exists to define and limit governmental authority. When we swear allegiance we swear to the flag; not the government.

As for being ungrateful, I'm not sure what you want people to be grateful for. I suspect it's for not being more harshly dominated than they are. At least that's what I gather when I hear people say "try living in Somalia - we have the best government in the world".

Those Americans who came before you made this Country and passed it into your care. Certainly something to be grateful for. You have made it very clear that you are totally clueless when it comes to concepts like slavery and oppression freedom and rights. Hence the Somalia references.

Freedom does not have degrees .

Untrue. There is no such thing as totally unrestricted freedom nor should there be. I think that it's kinda nice that people are not free to murder whomever they please whenever they please.

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that? Does it limit government in the way it was intended? We are light years from what the founders had in mind, and the Constitution did nothing to stop it. As you well know, lawyers and judges can logically justify anything based upon premises that creatively interpret the Constitution.

Does an oath stop politicians, police, and military from doing whatever they want? Of course not. Never has, never will. Oaths are nothing more than a religious ritual, the Constitution is just ancient scripture, and the flag is an icon. How well have those things worked out for religion? All manner of insanity has resulted, just like with government.

Tell me how I’m clueless regarding freedom, slavery, etc. If another man can claim a portion of my labor under threat of violence, I am not free. I don’t know how that could be any clearer. If I demand 100% of a man’s labor under threat of violence, that is obviously slavery, is it not? So how about if I only claim 99% or 84, or 45? At what point is it no longer slavery and why? I submit to you that on a principle level, demanding 1% is slavery, differing only in degree from the 100% demand, but not in the fundamental nature of the interaction.

Freedom does not include murdering people because that imposes on the freedom of another, at which point it becomes a self-defense issue (defense of his freedom). Conflicting freedoms clearly cannot overlap (your freedom to swing your fists must end where my nose begins, or my freedom is violated), so this defines the limits of freedom by logical necessity; by nature itself. Similarly, freedom does not mean freedom to fly without wings because that’s just not how the universe works. But this is very different than freedom being limited by the dictates of another man and backed up by unwarranted violent aggression.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Unless you are talking about a very primitive society such as an American Indian tribe in the 16th century the idea of voluntary contribution is IMO not feasible. I fully agree that in the case of the US, our government has far deviated from the original intention of the Constitution. It is very bloated largely due to complete lack of oversight and accountability. But I am a pragmatist and never expect perfection out of anything or anyone. I just hope for 'really good'.

To answer your question about whether the "contract" between country and individual is valid, moral and necessary I would say Yes, N/A and Yes. I don't see it being moral or immoral for the leaders of a country to have requirements and expectations of it's citizens. Even in a primitive tribe there would be expectations levied upon you unless you are too weak or disabled to contribute to the tribe.

Ok, so if you say this contract is valid, could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to excecute that right?

And how can any contract be valid without the expressed (often signed) consent of both parties? Some will cite “implied consent”, but how can this be valid when it’s completely one-sided? I never agreed to the terms of what will constitute the implication. If I say, “By standing at this bus stop, you imply your consent to being robbed” and you never agree to those terms, would I be justified in robbing you, and citing your implied consent as the justification? And what about when I expressly deny my consent? Can I imply consent while expressly denying it? Does “No” mean “Yes” now? For God’s sake, this is the logic of a rapist, is it not?

And how could morality be N/A? Governmental authority is inherently a moral concept. It is the “right” to rule, not just the ability. The mafia has the ability, but it is not government because it does not have the right. The right must be established for government to be valid, and the aforementioned challenges must be satisfactorily addressed to establish that right.

The necessity is a speculative consideration. I made a case for why government is not necessary for societal organization, and you only addressed it with the assertion that it’s not feasible on a larger scale or in a modern context. I disagree, but you provided no argument for me to address, and this being a less important factor than the validity and morality, I’m willing to drop it.

 

[MarathonMike]

I used the term 'contract' in a very loose context. But at a fundamental level that is what you have in any sort of societal organization. You have a contract, either written or implied that in effect states "As a member of this society you will abide by our rules. In return you will garner the benefits of being a member of the society". Again take the simple case of a primitive tribe. They may not have a written Constitution but I guarantee you they have a structure, rules and expectations for all members of the tribe. In this case you are born into the contract, there is no 'me' levying a contract on 'you'. If you don't like the terms of the contract, you can live outside the society but that is a hard road to travel. In the case of a primitive tribe it probably means death.

I agree with you that government is not necessary for societal organization. I was assuming you would want to have the resources of a country managed properly for it's citizens. For example, without our Constitution and government, the USA would resemble Africa which is run essentially by criminal politicians and warlords. For all of it's flaws, I'll take our society and it's infringements upon my freedoms any day of the week.

 

[Correll]

I am saying that for the vast majority of humans, the freedoms you have or don't have are defined by the country you are born into. To a lesser extent your family status might afford you freedoms within an oppressive country such as being part of Kim Jung Un's inner circle.
Outside of that, the only true freemen are those rare individuals who can survive on their own, off grid and in the wild. For the rest of us we are dependent on the infrastructure and services a country provides us and in exchange that country sets the rules for us and taxes us and defines what freedoms we have.

This is largely a very accurate description of what is (aside from the implication that we must trade involuntary obedience and servitude for infrastructure and services). Now the question becomes: What do you think about that? Is it valid, moral, necessary for it to be this way? Because you make a choice everyday whether or not to support this system.

Let’s just look at taxation... Couldn’t we have a system of voluntary contribution? After all, if there aren’t enough people willing to pay for something, doesn’t that mean there is insufficient demand to warrant supply? The free market makes millions of products available that are not essential to a reasonably comfortable life (rice cookers, bobble heads, sneakers with lights in them, etc.); so if demand is sufficient to support the supply of these things, would it not be sufficient to supply essential necessities like roads, clean water, protection, etc.?

And wouldn’t a free market result in better products and services at lower costs? If a protection agency choked an unarmed man in the streets on camera, resulting in his death, they would quickly be out of business. And we all know that government is highly inefficient and wasteful because they have no competition, and no accountability; people must pay or they get thrown in a cage. Businesses do not have this luxury.

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.


A business cannot fill that role.

Take what? Could you give an example?

Resources, protection, anything and everything.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I used the term 'contract' in a very loose context. But at a fundamental level that is what you have in any sort of societal organization. You have a contract, either written or implied that in effect states "As a member of this society you will abide by our rules. In return you will garner the benefits of being a member of the society". Again take the simple case of a primitive tribe. They may not have a written Constitution but I guarantee you they have a structure, rules and expectations for all members of the tribe. In this case you are born into the contract, there is no 'me' levying a contract on 'you'. If you don't like the terms of the contract, you can live outside the society but that is a hard road to travel. In the case of a primitive tribe it probably means death.

I agree with you that government is not necessary for societal organization. I was assuming you would want to have the resources of a country managed properly for it's citizens. For example, without our Constitution and government, the USA would resemble Africa which is run essentially by criminal politicians and warlords. For all of it's flaws, I'll take our society and it's infringements upon my freedoms any day of the week.

I agree about tribal societies, and that I'll take our current situation over worse conditions, but these are very low standards of evaluation for a sentient, moral, progressive species. If our goal is to have a truly peaceful, prosperous world, we'll need to employ greater imagination than merely noting what's come before.

My concern is what you and I are doing personally, right now, to effect change in the direction we both desire. I'm not saying we need to champion some cause and make our lives about it like Gandhi, but it behooves us to establish our position upon firm ground, and make our own small choices from that stable basis.

Even in the broadest possible context, the contract you describe is unilateral - one side makes the rules, the other must follow. I understand there are ritualistic, faux-philosophical work-arounds to make the old monarchy more appealing to modern audiences, and so instead of the "divine right of Kings" we have the oligarchical democratic republic. Now we "get to" pull a lever and feel like we're part of the process. We are even "allowed" to sue the government if we feel we were wronged (whereby, at the highest levels of the court, the defendant itself will determine resolution of the plaintiff's complaint). This helps vent some of the revolutionary spirit that might develop in the face of injustice. Very wise move on the part of the ruling class.

In keeping with our duty to establish a firm basis for supporting this system (after all, we are subjecting ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and the world at large to the immense power of this government), the following point, which I will repeat, must be addressed directly; as it is the bedrock upon which the validity of the system is founded:

"...could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to execute that right?"

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.

Resources, protection, anything and everything.

First I would point out that the freeloader problem is hardly a sufficient concern to justify an immense, invalid, immoral institution of coercive violence. Government is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (Stalin alone probably killed 50 million under a constitution not wholly unlike our own: 1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia). This is way, way more than would ever be possible in a free society, so I think we should weigh our concerns rationally before noting freeloaders as significant enough crisis to warrant this monstrosity.

But even if we had no way of combating freeloading without government, consider how a free market operates... If a town wishes to build a bridge, it will solicit its people to voluntarily contribute toward that effort. Those who don't sufficiently want it may refuse to pay (being willing to risk not having it for the benefit of not paying for it), while those who deem it essential will be willing to absorb the cost of those who refuse to pay. If that demand is sufficiently compelling, the bridge will get built. The worst case scenario is that there will be no bridge; and since there wasn't one before, there's no loss, and no one was coerced by threat of violence,

Once built, what difference does it make if people who did not pay get to use it? The people who wanted it achieved their goal and get to use it. Even if freeloaders put wear and tear on the bridge and the time comes when it needs repair, the same scenario arises whereby the demand of those who wish to maintain the bridge will either be sufficient enough that they will be willing to pay for repairs, or it will not. This accurately reflects the strength of demand, be it a little among a lot of people, or a lot among few. Even if you don't put a toll and just choose to scowl at the people who don't pay, we have the peace of non-violence in any case, and the potential prosperity of the bridge.

Compare that to our current system whereby the bridge is built via taxation, which robs everyone under threat of violence to pay for it whether they want it or not. Then a portion of that money goes toward limousines, "business lunches", and a salary for the politician, who grants the contract to his brother-in-law for three times the fair market value of a bridge. The brother-in-law's company is getting paid no matter what, and having no accountability to the customer, his guys take 2 hour lunches, go home at 3 o'clock, and the bridge takes twice as long to get built. Then a toll is put on the bridge indefinitely which everyone must pay, even if they already paid to have it built. And of course, we have the issue of this institution doing a million and one other corrupt and immoral things while we justify its existence by citing our need for bridges and freeloader control.

It's really just a matter of weighing our values. The innocent dead in Iraq are real people, just like you and me.They woke up one morning and saw the death of their children that afternoon. You and I are complicit in this if we support the institution that committed the act. The fact that we "don't like it" is irrelevant if we continue to support the overall system with our words and our votes, regardless of who those votes are for. The robbery of 300 million people to pay for it is immoral and not in keeping with our true values, as we would never rob someone directly, but condone it when done by proxy. Lies are required to gain our compliance, and on some level we all know it's not to defend anyone's freedom. And this is just one of a million immoralities that are born of governmental authority, never mind the fact that it has no valid basis to begin with; as it claims to derive its power from "the people" while none of "the people" have such rights individually (to tax each other, to make law for each other, to kill each other outside the scope of self-defense), such that they may delegate those rights to others.

We need a serious reality check about what we've been made to believe concerning the legitimacy, morality, and necessity of governmental authority as an overall concept; as no amount of well-meaning efforts to make it work better can change its inherent nature.