An E-Mail Discusion With a Friend - Patriotism

The following is an e-mail discussion, if you will, with a close friend. We often have these "long distant" conversations, and I find them enjoyable.

We share many similar values and beliefs. At the same time we have some significant differences. Sometimes we find ourselves in heated and passioned disagreement. Usually we find a way to arrive at a point of understanding each others position. Occasionally minds do change, both ways.

What I enjoy the most is that my friend challenges me and keeps me intellectually honest.

 My Friend's Viewpoint


While I usually stick to dictionary and other "learned" sources for definitions, I've never been particularly happy with those definitions

and I long ago came to an operational definition of my own.  I was studying ethics at the time and in retrospect I suspect I probably cribbed a bit from Kantian ethics.


In my mind,  to be a patriot is to act as though one is personally and
morally responsible for the actions taken by one's government against either it's own citizens or the citizens of countries anywhere else in the world.  By that definition, when I believe my government is acting
illegally or immorally, I am obliged to do my best to stop those actions and prevent them from happening again in the future.


Personally I believe that I should exhaust all legal means before
resorting to violence, but I accept that others who share the same
basic definition as  I may draw the lines at different points. That's
why I tend to cut people I disagree with a lot of slack and eschew ad
hominem arguments.


For instance, I don't agree with the anti-abortion advocates but I understand why someone who believes that life begins at conception
feels compelled to do everything in their power to change the status quo.  To such people abortion is a life and death issue and their
government has come down on the side of death.  According to my
definition, it would be unpatriotic of them to do any less and I never
fault them for their actions short of assassination. That's while you
never hear me defend my own position by denigrating individuals who are strongly against abortion.


That's why, though I disagree with a segment of what is called the Gun Lobby regarding the full meaning of the 2nd Amendment, you will never hear me refer to them as "gun nuts".


The key point is that my definition of a patriot encompasses people with radically different and opposing beliefs.  There is no one
particular set of beliefs that makes one person a patriot and another
not. I can never declare someone to unpatriotic based solely on what they believe.


By my definition, you are a patriot.  And so are many people to whom you are diametrically opposed.






 My Response

What you have written is, in large share, not so different from my own thoughts.


While you "cribbed" Kant, who I would oppose on various levels, I certainly, and perhaps to often for some, "crib" Rand.


My basic departure is this; 1) the consideration of  an issues ethical aspect, or lack thereof, must be determined, 2) the issue then needs to be considered from the perspective of rational self interest, and 3) the issue can then be looked at from the perspective of governance.


The only responsibility as an individual I have to my government is this, 1) to vote my conscience, and 2) (here I agree with Kant) to loudly raise my voice in dissent when I disagree. And, when I believe something evil exists to state it so.


I cut a lot of slack as well. I just do not accept that almost everything anybody chooses to believe is okay when it is, in my view, misguided at best or evil at worst. A is A, and B is B, (here's where I am "cribbing" Rand), and no amount of equivocation changes that. In so long as rational objective thought has been given to the determination.


Now I realize that the universe and the forces of the universe are not predictable. That there may be no absolutes with respect to the "heavens" if you will. But as we are discussing ethics and morality, specifically as it relates to politics, government, and those being governed the forces of  the universe are not a point of consideration.


To sum up, I am a proponent of  "civil disobedience" when the government oversteps the Constitution and begins to trample on the rights of the individual. This was happening under G.W.B., and it is happening even more so under B.O.


You'll have to forgive me for my fierce individualism, and love of capitalism. A is A, and on these issues I find no room for compromise.


I believe you are a patriot as well. And I suppose patriotism has different meanings for folks. My patriotism is founded on the belief in limited government, freedom of choice, a free market capitalistic nation, self reliance, pursuit of productive achievement, the right to act in ones own self interest, to pressure the government to act responsibly and with fiscal sanity, and last but certainly not least to defend our country by force against all acts of aggression when necessary. I am sure there is more I could add but time runs short.


This is as political discourse between people should be. It is, as I imagine our founding fathers and creators of this great Republic would have it. Although I suspect they might  be inclined to side with yours truly.


I hope you will forgive the presentation format of this great discussion. Time, as it often does, didn't allow for a complete rewrite. Copy and paste was all there was time for.


Comments

  1. most every post i write is the result of copy and paste. i usually write my stuff in a word processor first then copy and paste it
    over into my post. makes it easier to edit and you can take your time writing it for clarity also.

    as for the idea of patriotism, now, that would be a topic that you could write a book on and still not cover all that it means.
    ultimately,imho, it come down to the idea of, at what point is a person willing to give up all in the defense of his country, right or wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Verbal and legal actions would be great if you are dealing with someone, or some country or religion that respects those options. Unfortunately the scum we are dealing with right now have no concept of anything but their fanaticism and brutal cruelty. They only understand violence. So give it to them. Give them everything they know and fear. Killing is good. For everyone killed there is one more American safe from harm. Eventually you will run out of bad guys and then we can start to rebuild a country. Patriotism, to me, is anyone who supports our military and stand up for our country. The leftist Liberals are not among that group. John Kerry is saying it is too soon to send troops to Afghanistan. How would a coward who had a miserable Naval career and turned on his fellow troops while falsifying his medical records to get PH’s and a Silver Star know about true warfare. We need boots on the ground NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Griper,

    You are right on with your comment with respect to patriotism. However, when the action(s) of your country is evil in your OBJECTIVE consideration then ethically you have no alternative but to challenge your leadership.

    Coffeypot,

    I see your point. But I would ask this, what is our long term national interest in remaining engaged in Afghanistan?

    As a student of history, knowing the results of the British and Soviet Unions occupation of Afghanistan and the end results I must question the direction our nation is pursuing.

    You are right on with respect to John (the traitor) Kerry. However, the situation in Afghanistan deserves scrutiny so that we do ot end up with a second Vietnam.

    ReplyDelete
  4. now, my friend, we are talking about challenging our leaders either before war is declared or after war is declared.

    and if we follow the Constitution it is the Congress that has been given the authority to declare war not the people nor the states. and imuo it was set up that way deliberately since it represents the people and the states and we are a representative form of government not a direct democracy.

    and if we agree to the fact that there is a concept of universal human rights then any and every war is by its nature, evil. we'd have to call it a necessary evil but evil it still remains because wars cannot be fought without violating the universal human rights concept. War is one action that turns ethics up on its ear. it is one and probaqbly the only act of man where the end justifies the means. it is the one act of man where might makes right.

    once war has been declared and the president has led the men into battle there are only two causes that the troops fight and die for, a winning cause or a losing cause. and this is when the troops need the support of the homeland and we must choose between the two causes. and i don't know of a time or war that Congress approved of, that it gave its approval to a losing cause.

    another thing, the world respects a winner not a loser of wars. that includes both ally and enemy. the enemy will think twice before attacking a winner of wars and show contempt towards a loser of wars.

    but, don't get me wrong. i agree wholeheartedly with you if we are speaking about challenging before war is declared. that is the time to debate the issue. but, once debated and a decision made, we as a nation should unite as one to win that war regardless of which side of the debate a person was on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agreed. Once the decision has been made to put troops in harms way it is indeed the responsibility of our nation to support THEM.

    It is also responsibility of that government to support them and give the ALL the tools required to win the conflict DECISIVELY and as quickly AS POSSIBLE.

    I supported our original decision to go into Afghanistan as go in we had to. I believe it was ethically correct to do so as the acts of 911 were an act of aggression against the United States of America and was supported by the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

    I also supported the decision to go into Iraq when it was made. At this time I believe I was mistaken in my support with respect to Iraq.

    My current issue with Afghanistan is this; I do not believe the politicians have the will nor desire to give our troops what they need to win a decisive and complete victory.

    Further if we win the decisive victory I speak we will be left to rebuild. Once that is accomplished what is to say a again resurgent Taliban will not take control again.

    And thus the circular path is likely to continue. This I cannot support.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I also supported the decision to go into Iraq when it was made. At this time I believe I was mistaken in my support with respect to Iraq."

    now, that is a surprising thing to say. i'd be mighty interested in your reasoning for this change.

    in my opinion we were more justified in fighting the war in Irag than in Afghanistan but i support both as long as our troops are in harm's way. and once they are no longer in harm's way i show my judgment on the decision the President makes in that regard in the voting booth.

    "Further if we win the decisive victory I speak we will be left to rebuild. Once that is accomplished what is to say a again resurgent Taliban will not take control again"

    that possibility exists in any war when the objective of victory is not one of conquest and occupation. what i fear more are the consequences that come from not decisively winning a war.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To me, the long term plan would be to first clear out the Taliban, then DO NOT try to Americanize the country. Help them establish a free election process and turn the country back over to them. They would be a great ally to us and the coalition countries.

    I admit is a piece of shit country that will never be at the top of the tourist bureaus, but it is a country strategically placed to shorten the distance from the oil wells to the ships. Most of the fighting is so a pipeline can be laid across their land. That is a good thing. The free world needs the oil shipped at a cheaper price and they could use the economic boost the pipeline would produce. So, get them established and steady to country and wipe out the Taliban. That is why I feel we need boots on the ground, but we have a weak administration and I feel the war may be lost - which is what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I see your point Coffeypot, and it is certainly worth considering.

    However, consider this. The United States is actually sitting on one of the worlds largest reserves of sweet crude. Why don't we just drill, and tap into this vast reserve for our countries exclusive use?

    Forgive IF YOU me please. I just don't believe we can win the hearts and minds of a very individualistic and stubborn people such as the Islamic Afghanis.

    therefor I believe they will never be a trusted ally.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Forgive IF YOU me please. I just don't believe we can win the hearts and minds of a very individualistic and stubborn people such as the Islamic Afghanis.

    therefor I believe they will never be a trusted ally"

    mmmm, think a little deeper on this thought, my friend. individualism is the backbone of our philosophy. we must be willing to apply that to everyone if we truly believe in it, even to any ally we have. if we don't we are falling prey to the collective thought process.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well Griper, at some level I see your point. I however, do not agree. This stems perhaps from my fierce individualism rather than any "perceived" collectivism another may have of my views.

    1) As an individual I would oppose, to the point of death, any country invading my country, Certainly I would do do with a prolonged presence (occupation of)my country.

    2) The Afghani people are not a western culture, they do not share western values (read American, and they are part of the Islamic sphere of influence. Thus we will never win their minds or allegiance. Unless of course we officially adopt an Islamic perspective.

    3) In my view (911 aside) I do not see them as a huge national security threat at this time. The much larger threat exists in our own countries leadership (read Obama) and its weak, indecisive position with respect to the Afghanistan situation, and the fact I believe our national leader harbors sympathies for the Islamic cause of world domination.

    4) If I am a fierce individualist, and the Afghan people are fiercely individualistic and do not wish to be westernized, then who I am I to tell them they lack the right to their on individual determination and that of their country.

    5) The Afghanistan government is corrupt and by supporting a corrupt government are we not then part of the problem?

    6)Is the Afghan government really our ally? I wonder.

    7)If the question is; can the current state of affairs in Afghanistan be shown to poses a real national security risk to our nation and people, and the answer is objectively yes then I revert to an original argument of mine, which I have held consistently, give our military everything it needs to eliminate the threat and then come home.

    8) Philosophically, as an individual and American who believes in self determination I hold the following to be true, Ayn Rand once said the only justification for the use of force against another is in response to an act of aggression (I paraphrase but it is close),

    9)So is Afghanistan an aggressor nation at the present time? I do not think so. The point can be argued that if we leave we run the risk of the terrorist element striking again using Afghanistan as their base. This is possible. But then again Pakistan is of the same concern.

    10)A very difficult question and the longer the indecisive Obama administration takes to decide the more service men and women are at risk.

    Finally, If our national security is at stake then the Administration must act accordingly. If it isn't then the Administration must act accordingly. And soon.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

As the Liberal/Progressive Media and Blogosphere Attempt To Destroy Governor Chris Christie...

And The Carnage Continues...

Unspeakable Evil...

Recommended Reading, Thomas Piketty’s best-selling new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”...

On the Zimmerman Trial amd Outcome...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"