Well,Sandy,what do you expect from French? They are GREAT PATRIOTS!!

"You know, Mark, even today very few people really know where is the border between Germany and Swiss or France (not that they care).In Europe you can take wrong turn and find yourself in another country without even to notice"

Having crossed the border from Switzerland to France (Geneva to Thoiry) on at least 18-20 occasions. I can categorically state that you pass border control and it is smack dab in your face and you know exactly that you are crossing into another country.

Up to a point I agree 100% with James, but then beyond that say this is why I'm absolutely uncomfortable with the concept of patriotism, thus why I always shy away from it. Freedom will come through the operation of a free (global) market, so the 'buy NZ campaign' is working against freedom - but this shows how easily this form of collectivism is turned by unscrupulous politicians to further their enslaving agendas via the mechanism of a moronic, unthinking populace.

You know, Mark, even today very few people really know where is the border between Germany and Swiss or France (not that they care).In Europe you can take wrong turn and find yourself in another country without even to notice-that happened to my sister. In the future, as Frederick Cookinham describes in "The age of Rand", when all political systems will be based on the rational principles of individual rights and non-aggression-national borders will become mere formality. Patriotism will be simple sentimental attachment to the place of birth, landscapes, native language, national history and culture and, generally speaking,” feeling at home". It is nothing wrong about that as long as in real matters one is still a citizen of the World. It will be free movement and trade without tariffs, it will be gold-based currency, and so only legitimate function of the border control will be to apprehend criminals.

Thanks for that. I know a lot less about Israel than you, so I happily take your word on this: and happy denotes the right emotion in the context, because Israel, as far as a country can be, is one of my heroes.

Although, as you say, a country under siege, and patriotism for the right cause. But for myself, patriotism is still to a 'country', and that is only okay when the philosophy and ideas on which that country is set, are freedom based: it's the philosophy that is important, nothing to do with arbitrary lines on a map or the accidents of the culture in which we're born.

Thus I continue to be suspicious of it, and I still view it as a form of collectivism, especially as and when it is most often assumed unthinkingly, and when used easily as a tool by tyrants to inflict atrocities.

Plus I still see no issues with my 'ideal' position that a free society, in about 4,000 years if they're lucky, would be a borderless one, that is, no nation states, and nation states will then be seen as a tribalistic relic that human civilisation had to cast off, along with the vestiges of religion and mysticism.

But again, your report on Israel heartens me.

" Yeah, but in an ideal world, seriously, do you want to live in Israel? Thank God they are there, but the Mossad, compulsory military conscription ... they are as far away from living free lives almost as it is possible to be. You will have no privacy/freedom there. "

Mark, how much do you really know about Israel? I lived in Israel for 16 years and my family is still living there. I visit them almost every year. And from my experience I can assure you that Israel is as free as possible to be for the country under siege. Judging from the history ,other free countries in such a situation very quickly turn to semitotalitarin State-like America under threat of terrorism. In Israel that never happened. Loyal Arab citizens enjoy full civil rights and freedoms. Regarding to the question of compulsory military conscription: it still exists in the stationary books. But as a matter of fact, for Israeli military service is a question of dignity. The number of applicants to elite military units in Israel is much bigger than demand. You see, Mark-Israelis are patriots and for good reason. And finally, what do you think Mossad is? KGB? Holly Inquisition? Mossad is Israeli military intelligence service, legitime tool of State's self-defense.

I oppose any "patriotism" which increases the price of food for my countrymen just to help out some other fellow countrymen who happen to farm.

As one American Objectivist put it: "'Buy American' is un-American."

Some governments protect their farmers/producers by imposing an extra tax on imports. Patriotism is the basis for this. While I know that objectivists oppose all taxes what do people here think about the patriotism that underlies the decision to impose those taxes.

In NZ there are no additional taxes for most imports (gst of 12.5% is added to both imports and local goods) but we do have "Buy New Zealand Made" campaigns. What do people here think of this type of patriotism.

FYI: it would be unconstitutional for one state to erect entry (or trade) barriers against another state within the U.S.

And that works out just swell.

Yeah, but in an ideal world, seriously, do you want to live in Israel? Thank God they are there, but the Mossad, compulsory military conscription ... they are as far away from living free lives almost as it is possible to be. You will have no privacy/freedom there.

I have no idea what you mean in your first paragraph .. what do you mean? Are we talking morality being relative now?

And don't take such great pains to be non PC that you end up a racist or a Nazi. That's just silly. Reason before all else: that's the guide, not whether you think a course of action may be PC or not.

Re your post below: the borders of a country are not the same as the borders of private property. You and Commander Wiig have a terminal confusion over this matter. The test: would you be happy with a government official checking your identity papers every night before you could enter the door of your house? Of course you should be free to protect the borders of your property, but I am not free when my movements across national borders are tracked, and permission has to be attained from Governments to move from country to country. I have also said mine is the ideal position, unattainable.

Single government, a dozen governments. Why not work toward getting rid of governments - then you and I will be free, and own our lives. 

Nationalistic country/culture based thinking is collectivism ... pure and simple. Anti-freedom. 

And you've still not answered how private property ownership equates to communism.

My argument was not about private property. It was about having no borders.
"How do you define private property if there are no borders?"

How do you define a country if there is no border?

If there are no borders to countries, then the world is a single entity with a single government.

Point One: As you vehemently maintain we are all individuals.

As individuals we each have varying standards including morality, hygiene and the way we choose to lead our lives. If individuality is to be respected then we must respect the choice of those who would distance themselves from others.

My standards are not necessarily your standards regardless of who or what you are. This has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity.

You always play the racist card because I am not being politically correct. Please note that I intentionally take great pains not to be PC, as much as I can, in as many circumstances as I can, in all spheres of my life.

Point two: You use East Germany to decry your wall, I shall to use Israel to exult mine.

But is still a sign of enslavement nevertheless.

I've never been a pragmatist.

All tyrants will enslave you by offering to save you from an Other - in your case the Jihadists.
I agree, without national borders in this crappy world we live, some basic freedoms cannot be protected, including, in this case, life itself. This is more the shame, because while we have these borders, and States governing them, none of us are ever going to be free, ever, not in any of our lifetimes. We are always going to have some official checking our identity papers.

And you've still not answered how private property ownership equates to communism. Down below ...

And the 'melting pot' slur. Down below ...

"Objectivism doesn't call for no borders, Sandi, but an immigration policy which only excludes people who pose a threat of physical harm to those inside."

An immigration policy that exists in the interests of security is precisely what I would consider desirable, logical, workable and essential.

Thank you. (Objectivism always comes up trumps)

What's the 'big melting pot which could get rather dirty' in reference to Sandi.

Given the meaning of melting pot you must be aware of as used in NZ, is this another racial slur?

The melting pot was going to happen in NZ when the races inter-married, which I think a rather good fix to the evils of tribalism. Scared of crossing the blood lines are we?

You might marry a bloke, and then find he was a Jihadist? 

And one more time before I take my holiday:

How would you feel if a State official had the power to check your passport and identity papers each time before you were allowed to enter or leave your house, your private property? If they followed your every move within your private property, censoring or imprisioning you when you don't do as they see fit? Would you like that? An absolute lack of privacy and therefore freedom?

Now do you understand the difference between a Nation State with borders and the a-priori notion essential to freedom of private property? How the latter is freedom, the former imprisonment?

All tyrants will enslave you by offering to save you from an Other - in your case the Jihadists.
I agree, without national borders in this crappy world we live, some basic freedoms cannot be protected, including, in this case,  life itself. This is more the shame, because while we have these borders, and States governing them, none of us are ever going to be free, ever, not in any of our lifetimes.

Allegiance to the ideas of freedom (my post below) - never to a country, for the sake of country.

Richard -
Context: State border controls that prevent potentially dangerous people from entering that state from other states.

Consider the border controls between Canada and America, these could be done away with by agreement between the two governments.

Note: I wouldn't recommend dropping any of Israel's borders.

Baby worm with his father crawls for the first time from the anus (asshole).
"Daddy, what is this big warm yellow glob?"
"This is the Sun, my child"
"And what is this blue thing above us?"
"This is the sky, my baby"
"And what is this green cover?"
"This is the grass, my son"
"Daddy, Sun, sky, grass are so beautiful! Why do we have to live in the asshole?"
"Because this is our homeland!"

No borders, no countries just one big melting pot which could get rather dirty.
If everything is owned privately and there are no countries therefore there can only be one government.
Sounds more like communism to me.

With just as insane iterations of this by commander Wiig.

Am I the only one who understands how ridiculous, how insanely ridiculous, that statement is.

Sandi I'll give you communism - East Berlin, they built a wall along their border with the 'free' world. Would you consider the East Germans were free? As they were being shot to death trying to cross over or under the wall. That's bloody communism. The communists wanted a borderless world to create a huge Gulag: I want a borderless world for precisely the opposite reason: because then I will be free - it's a borderless world with minimal state, not All State.

The 'ideal' free world is of course a borderless one, and it must be founded on the principle of private property rights (which you seem to actively despise in your second sentence!) - I don't want Government officials having any control over me. I have already said such a free world will never exist in our lifetimes, and you and the Commander would indicate for me, probably not for another 2,000 years.

You are so besotted by the Jihadists you have turned your mind into a prison. You would enslave me. You are the enemy, and you will continue to be until you figure out what a free society actually it. Because you have no idea. In fact, you could  be slightly loopier version of Bismarck writing to this forum.

And what's the 'big melting pot which could get rather dirty' in reference to then. Given the meaning of melting pot you must be aware of as used in NZ, is this another filthy racial slur?

...(and where can I get a glow for *my* SOLO picture?!?!)

To answer your question, I'd feel 'politically' patriotic if the political structure of the country where I reside, which I unashamedly refer to as the United Police States, would return to its Jeffersonian origins as refined by the Abolitionists, and become a government which ONLY protects individual citizens from the initiation of force, fraud and coercion and nothing more. Everything else is Nanny Statism and in contrast to the Jefforsonian/Abolotionist ideals which made the United States the greatest country the world has ever seen. (OK, so I guess I'm a bit of a *historical* patriot)

I never said patriotism for foreigners is 'bad' per say, it depends on what the feelings of patriotism come from. If someone from say, Germany, expresses a patriotism for their country by way of fond remembrance of the accomplishments of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis (recent historical patriotism), that would be *bad*. If someone from Venezuela expressed patriotism in the form of support for its current dictator Chavez' regime (i.e. political patriotism), that also would be *bad*. But I'd see nothing wrong with a kiwi expressing patriotism for having the best rugby team the world has ever seen ('athletic' patriotism), or any world cup or Olympic victories from the respective countries.

It depends on what you're feeling patriotic (with that I'm assuming you mean something like 'pride in the nation one lives in') about. In your faith, Reed, you are instructed to 'judge by the fruit' and in many cases, feelings of patriotism do not produce nor are a product of 'bad fruit' per se. Absolutely so, in some of the cases I mention above.

A future with little in the way of borders is theoretically conceivable, I suppose, but Objectivism doesn't call for no borders, Sandi, but an immigration policy which only excludes people who pose a threat of physical harm to those inside.

Sure, it would probably mean that it's less free, but I'm really not sure what kind of context you're talking about about. You've provided no context. You seem to be talking about arbitrary state intervention into private property as opposed to legitimate state activities in defence of private property? So I guess if it's the former, then it's less free. If it's the latter, then a whole lot more needs to be said about the context.

Jesus won't help you. You ought to know that by now. And likewise, Reed won't help you either. He's nailed nothing on the head, but it seems like he has, which is good enough for you, so you give it little thought and perhaps even mould it a little to fit your ends.

You two are the imprisonment of me, for you would have me in a Nation State Pen, and I don't even trust you that this wouldn't be a concentration camp, quicker than any socialist in this country.

Reed, the Christian for Christ's sake, has it in one. But let me phrase it another way.

How would you feel if a State official had the power to check your passport and identity papers each time before you were allowed to enter or leave your house, your private property? If they followed your every move within your private property, censoring or imprisioning you when you don't do as they see fit? Would you like that? An absolute lack of privacy and therefore freedom?

Now do you understand the difference between a Nation State with borders and the a-priori notion essential to freedom of private property? How the latter is freedom, the former imprisonment?

All tyrants will enslave you by offering to save you from an Other.

I agree, without national borders in this crappy world we live, some basic freedoms cannot be protected. This is more the shame, because while we have these borders, and States governing them, none of us are ever going to be free, ever, not in any of our lifetimes.

Please, understand the difference between a fucking country, and the principles represented by private property.

I am tired and you are both, yet again, beyond contempt. Stupidity on this scale is irresponsible. Get yourselves informed.

Jesus!

For my sanity, I am taking myself off for three weeks to The Poetry.

Jesus!

Before I move to Tweedle Sandi and Tweedle Wiig, who have outdone themselves this time.

Allegiance to ideas ...

The idea set I believe is: philosophy - Objectivism; Economics - Capitalism; Politics - Libertarianism.

I believe this idea set can create a world where I can be free, and own my own life, thus, I give it my allegiance, that is, I believe in them, and work toward them as my goals.

Richard -

Would you consider the United States less free if each state had border control?

Yes, because Galt's Gulch was private property ...

 a truly free society is a borderless society,

Comment number two and comment number one are contradictory.

... allegiance should only be to ideas...

What does that mean?
[edit] In practice.

How do you define private property with no border?

How do you define a country with no border? Or does it cease to exist?

How does a government protect its citizens with no border because if there is no border then the government must be all-encompassing.

No borders, no countries just one big melting pot which could get rather dirty.

If everything is owned privately and there are no countries therefore there can only be one government.

Sounds more like communism to me.

What does it mean to be patriotic to ideas?

In terms of the dictionary it means nothing Reed. Patriotism is to a country, per se, and I'll never be comfortable with that, so I'm retrenching to my original position: allegiance should only be to ideas, not countries, except where the country happens to converge with the ideas.

Mark -
What does it mean to be patriotic to ideas?

(I'm asking you because I can understand your explanations)

Mark how do you equate someone’s voluntary loyalty and homage to a county with a concept like collectivism?

When Patriotism's willing hand is turned toward the evil aspirations of Nationalism.

Although I have probably erroneously been guilty of using patriotism and nationalism interchangeably.

I just think it very important to note that when we are being patriotic, it has to be to the 'ideas' that a country represents to us, not the arbitrary 'thingyness' of the country itself and it's arbitrary borders. I see it as so easy to pass from patriotism to the sublimation of the self to the State/Culture, and so an ugly tribalism/collectivism, the opposite of an individualistic Objectivism, which is what I think Reed is getting at, and on which I agree with him. (Albeit Reed is Christian, thus must count himself out of being Objectivist).

Summation: the philosophy of individual freedom first, and those systems that can support and promote it: bugger countries, they're just lines; bugger cultures, they're just an accident of birth. So, patriotism to ideas, yes, to a country, per se, no.

Semantics.

I think James has summed up the concepts of patriotism and collectivism well. Collectivism is about man as a sacrificial animal,who is used by the state and/or the public good. Patriotism is the response of your own personal values to the values of your nation.
Mark how do you equate someone’s voluntary loyalty and homage to a county with a concept like collectivism?
Rand loved America for its founding values of Individualism, Freedom and trade.
I love New Zealand for its tranquil, competitive and “small but not insignificant” mentality.
And Reed, I don’t think you could put all Objectivists into one box and ask whether we all approve of patriotism. There are unfortunately some very mindless patriots around. The patriotism of the people in Poland or Russia leaves me astounded.
If I lived in Galt’s Gulch I would be very patriotic about it indeed.
I have the same feelings of wanting to pay homage and glorify man’s mind. I personally experience this when standing in a surgery theater and watching the surgeon perform an operation. I think to myself how absolutely magnificent!

I most certainly approve of Patriotism but not necessarily all patriots!
kkulak

... wasn't a country, but a private refuge from the ongoing siege.

Did not have an open border. It was exclusive.

It did, however, have an apostrophe.

('Apostrophe' should be easy for you to remember, Sandi, it has the same first five letters as 'Apostasy'.)

Yes, because Galt's Gulch was private property ... we've been through this, remember. The insane Canadian Pension plan = Jihadists thread.

National borders, nation states, passports, tracking me wherever I go via the mechanisms of big States, are not the same thing as private property rights, privacy, or issues thereto. The very opposite in fact. Nationalism and patriotism = collectivism.

Allegiance must be to the ideals of freedom - not to borders, or cultures for their own sake. 

Jesus help me, Reed?

Did not have an open border. It was exclusive.

Fun is creating software and un-fun is doing tax returns.

Damn, the Christian took a low shot and got me where it hurts. Limping from the field ... 

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Unfortunately I don't remember who said that. I think the meaning of this statement is that unquestioned loyalty to one's country, nation or State can justify any act of crime against any other group of people. This kind of patriotism is very low form of tribalism and therefore collectivism. If State or Country or Nation became supreme value than Man has no value whatsoever-that what happened in fascist or communist countries. Nobody can in reason demand loyalty to a slave-pen. However if country's dominant philosophy upholds Man's life as supreme value and defends his inalienable rights-than patriotism is justified. That why Rand denounced her native Russia and became proud American.

An interesting if highly sci-fi hypothetical -- and purely esthetic question -- might be to ask where you'd live, Reed, if the whole world enjoyed true liberty.

Among the places I've seen in this world, Italy looks mighty nice...

No, Reed, race pride is NOT a good thing -- nor is the sort that you've just conjured up all on your own.

In a free country, it's a question of voting with your feet. The question is whether one can choose or has chosen one's country. For example, as an American I'm free to leave at any time... getting permanently in is another matter... but lots try every day.

It's that choice for which one feels individual "pride."

It chaps ma hide that the U.S. doesn't permit more folks that "choice."

In any event, as a nation of immigrants, Americans are acutely aware of this issue as a matter of choice, not birth. America is not a set "people" or a race or an ethnicity or a food preference or a team preference... it's an ideology.

My favorite American author was born in Russia (yes, she beats out the likes of the amazing Mark Twain for me) and the governor of my state is an Austrian-born movie star. For folks like these, this understanding is particularly keen.

Of course, America has begun to lose its way -- and should some other country better embody my ideal, I'd have NO PROBLEM trading up and switching over (if I could).

Just like they did.

I will admit that having grown up in the American West, I love the beauty of this landscape -- I love it like "home." I totally understand the feeling of loyalty to one's "home." And I have seen pictures of New Zealand's remarkable beauty, too... But such esthetic considerations must take a back seat to the question of freedom -- and I'd rather make my home in a place of freedom than one of majestic beauty.

And, to my mind, freedom is something worth fighting and maybe even dying for.

Mark -
Then I'm putting back for equally ludicrous consideration that the relationship between Islam and Jihad is similar to the relationship between Christianity and the fourteenth century crusades.

I wouldn't consider it ludicrous if the Christian teachings of that time had the same traits as Islamic teachings that are now causing Jihad.

Soccer rioters are thugs who have no actual interest in the game of soccer.

What?... next you'll tell me Hitler didn't really care about the German people.

You're right on your original point, patriotism = collectivism...
Do you think this is the official objectivist perspective?

... but are looking for monsters that aren't in the extrapolation to sports.
Some time ago I saw a fascinating study. A group of roughly 20 people had to live in a house together. They knew they were part of an experiment but the objective was hidden from them. Initially they were left to themselves and friendships formed. After a few days The organisers assigned each person as either 'A' or 'B', the 'A's were given red shirts to wear and the 'B's were given blue shirts. No instructions were given about association but most of the 'A's and 'B's stopped associating with each other. Some friendly rivalry started. As a distraction they were given tasks to perform as competing groups and scores were kept. Some of the original friendships that had formed were between 'A's and 'B's and fellow team members became concerned about the associations. Pressure was put on each of the friends by their fellow team members and eventually there was sufficient pressure that none of those friendships survived. Patriotism plus sport can lead to strife.

What did you think of the nationalistic "Call Me Loyal" campaign for the America's Cup? IMO this campaign caused people to view NZers that sailed for other teams as "disloyal" or "traitors". You may not see this as a bad thing but I do.

You have to be able to recognise fun from un-fun. Socialists and Christians seem to be handicapped in this area.

Fun is creating software and un-fun is doing tax returns.

James -
Americans and New Zealanders have an objective basis in fact for pride. That's the stuff about which they should get a warm fuzzy.

The objective basis for an individual's national pride is that they identify with the group of people who live within the same borders. Somehow the accomplishments of the surrounding people and their ancestors becomes a source of pride for the individual.

If the individual identifies instead with a particular race then they may end up with race based pride.

Do you consider race based pride a good thing?

I'm pointing out, for your consideration, that the relationship between political patriotism and war is similar to the relationship between sporting patriotism and soccer riots.

Then I'm putting back for equally ludicrous consideration that the relationship between Islam and Jihad is similar to the relationship between Christianity and the fourteenth century crusades.

Or,

Soccer rioters are thugs who have no actual interest in the game of soccer.

You're right on your original point, patriotism = collectivism, but are looking for monsters that aren't in the extrapolation to sports.

You have to be able to recognise fun from un-fun. Socialists and Christians seem to be handicapped in this area. 

Mark -
Thou doth protest too much Reed.
I'm not protesting at all.

I'm pointing out, for your consideration, that the relationship between political patriotism and war is similar to the relationship between sporting patriotism and soccer riots.

What do you mean "same type of patriotism"?

Starting wars? Placing blind trust in political leadership? My country "do or die?"

No, no and no.

Americans and New Zealanders have an objective basis in fact for pride. That's the stuff about which they should get a warm fuzzy. The unsolved problems in our respective countries should not be the object of any pride, "just 'cause it's 'ours,'" however, but dissatisfaction and a desire to change.

James -
Objectivism would, for example, totally oppose the "patriotism" of a Soviet or a Nazi...

Would objectivism support the same type of patriotism if it was in an American or New Zealander?

Thou doth protest too much Reed.

I was very clear. Yes, blind patriotism/nationalism in the name of nationhood is a very insidious form of collectivism that tyrants throughout time have used to kill individuals. It's heinous. The only allegiance should be to ideas (promoting freedom), and relationships to individuals (including loyalty to friends, though never blind loyalty ...)

Regarding sport, a 'fun nationalism' only is what I plainly meant, which I have no trouble discerning from anything toxic. If it kills, it's not fun, is it. Next you'll be confessing partisanship with that NZ communist, Commissar Bradford, and that you can't tell a smack from a whack?

Michael -
Under what circumstances would you consider being patriotic toward America and how would that patriotism differ from the bad patriotism of a foreigner?

Richard -
What evidence do you have that Objectivists approve of patriotism?

When I introduced myself I mentioned that I oppose patriotism. Glenn Jameson voiced approval of patriotism...

...There’s nothing wrong with patriotism either, by the way...

...Patriotism does not breed irrational hatred: bad ideas do. There’s nothing wrong with loving one’s country if the country embodies moral values like individual liberty...

... and Scott DeSalvo had a patriotic response to my intro...

Can the anti-Americanism, though. As an American, I don't appreciate the "All Americans have obvious, shallow senses of humor" crap.

Aside from these first impressions and the absence of correction from objectivists there are also mixed messages from objectivists; Even in this discussion Mark has indicated support for patriotism in sport, James sounds like he condones patriotism if his group is superior to another and Michael has indicated that the current political establishment is undeserving of his patriotism.

Mark -
You're wrong Reed
Are you saying that it is consistent with objectivism to consider patriotism as a form of collectivism.

Nationalism is only any use at an entertainment level: that is, sport.

Patriotism in sport also leads to strife - probably even deaths.

Insofar as I appreciate many forms of music which originate from the United States and even more I appreciate the philosophy which created the United States, later to be refined with even greater clarity by the Abolitionists. I am thankful for these things, and I suppose also (as Mark hinted at) for certain athletic and culinary traditions which originate from the US as well.

I cannot call myself a 'political' patriot as the United States, which I now call the United POLICE States, no longer politically embodies the ideas that made this country at one time the greatest nation on Earth. I am sickened by all aspects of American politics and have been my whole life. About the only political thing I have to be thankful for is that I can say such things publicly without fear of disappearing in the middle of the night (at least not YET).

Objectivism would, for example, totally oppose the "patriotism" of a Soviet or a Nazi... and is there really any reason whatever for an Iranian to feel "patriotic"?

Objectivists would say that those who live under relative freedom should appreciate this fact... and we acknowledge the superiority of civilization over savagery...

Is that what you mean?

What evidence do you have that Objectivists approve of patriotism?

You're wrong Reed

I'm on record with my scorn for the notion of nation states ... look at my thread with Commander Wiig toward the end of the insane sale of Auckland Airport thread: a truly free society is a borderless society, and  patriotism is collectivist bullshit.

Nationalism is only any use at an entertainment level: that is, sport.

The big picture is that loyalty has to be to an idea, and the system that allows freedom to exist, not to an arbitrary border.