What Do You Owe Your Country? What Do You Give Back?

Sofia, to avoid misunderstanding: I am not Turkish.

And even if he's quite a character, I agree with Setanta that we owe something to society. I just don't draw borders in it.

Sofia,

The operative words were not "give back" the distinction was "your community" versus "your country".

e.g. My community has not often been my country. When I was about to join the military foolish people here were saying things about how I'd be paying back my debt to my country.

They would not have been very happy if I were to "pay back" to the community in a foreign country by joining their military should I decide that is the way I would "give back to my community".

Again, there is a big difference between asking what one owes their community versus what one owes their country.

Take Gezzy for e.g. Her community right now is in Canada. She felt that her country screwed her over.

Should she owe her country or her community?


Setanta,

If social advancement is to be something to be grateful for then it would point toward "owing" other nations as well. In many cases other nations have contributed to social advancement far more so than one's own nation.

Like wolf I am not seeing anyone here make a valid argument that we need to define our community as our country.

Talk of giving back to the community and all is nice. How that translates into owing one's country is not something people here have even attempted to illustrate.

That, Craven de Kere, is because there is nothing conrete that distinguishes a country as something real. Conquerors are helped by it, because it feeds animosity. But in reality there is but a small ball of carbon, water, and nitrogen, with a myriad of life on it.

The hippies were right.

I define my community as my country, because of the social contract under which the nation is organized, which does not obtain elsewhere. This does not by any means allow the inference that i would not feel that way toward another nation, were i a resident. Nor is it reasonable to infer from this that i have failed to recognize the provenance of what you refer to as social advancement. I am stating that the structure which shelters us is in place when we enter society, and to that extent, we owe that society for the benefits which we receive.

I would be willing to live in Canada, and may likely do so some day. To the extent that that society would offer me like shelter and opportunity, i would at the very least owe my law-abiding participation, and ought from time to time, take cognizance of the benefits i would enjoy in a society so organized. I think we are becoming involved in somewhat of a word game here in introducing nationalism as a boogey man in the discussion. I'm not here saying "my country, right or wrong." I am saying that we live in well-organized societies, which organization is to our individual benefit, and for which it is not at all unreasonable to be grateful.

Craven--



I think you might have suspected a direction in this thread that wasn't intended. In Gezzy's case--only taken from what you have said here--it seems she has rejected her country, based on her disagreement with it. That is well within her rights--and I think favorably of people who take such action when they cannot or will not resolve major differences with their country of birth, depending on their personal circumstances. Birth doesn't tie us to a location, and it doesn't force any allegiences.

I definitely wouldn't expect someone in Gezzy's position to pay any homage to a country she has rejected, or felt rejected by. I guess the question to her would be about the country/community she has chosen.

We are not introducing logomachy with 'nationalism' any more so than the whole question is a logomachy.

You claim that you might not necessarily feel a certain way about another nation were you a resident there. That is what I mean by this not being the same thing as the simple notion of solidarity with one's community.

A debt to one's country incurred simply on the basis of the circumstances of one's birth is one thing, giving back to a community in which you are a part is another. In neither would I use the word debt without special circumstances.

There is no social contract. We are born without the choice of accepting it or declining it.

Sofia,

Why must one choose?

Because there is an implied contract with a country and the citizens that inhabit it.

I disagree. A contract implies a choice. Some do not have that choice. Beyond the simple question of obeying the law what can possibly be contrued as a debt?

Agree, Craven.

I think this is a private relationship between citizen and community and, by extension, nation. To attempt to codify the relationship is to fall into the kind of jingoism we've seen lately. Who "serves his country better": the kid in the military in Iraq, or the protester who tried to prevent the invasion? The fact is, each of us knows best how to serve, and each of us chooses whether to do so or not. If I were going to plead for more engaged citizenship, it would be for participation in the political process and voting. (That said, I was unable to vote in the poll! It was too Fox-y; the choices too arbitrary and loaded.)

I'm trying to avoid the political ramifications of this question because I think it was asked in earnest. But those ramifications have bearing.

As you note, some use this issue to delienate for you what your contribution should be.

I note that several members of this site have advocated the draft because "the youth don't have a sense of responsibility to their country these days" (paraphrased).

But beyond the political values this question might have there is a simple issue of what is a reasonable debt.

Should one feel indebted to their mother for giving them life? To their father?

That sounds like an easy question but what if one is raped by their father? What does one "owe" their father then? What if they are abandoned by their father? What should they "give back"?

I like my debts to be a matter of choice, not predestined.

In fact, i was saying that i likely would feel that way, were i a resident of another nation. I can't imagine how you could have credited me with the opposite statement--and that basic misunderstanding on your part is the basis for your confirmation of your ealier statement about "the simple notion of solidarity with one's community." As you have misinterpreted what i wrote, you are not, in fact, correct to take my statement as confirmation.

There is in fact a social contract, and it is embodied both in law and in custom. We do have the choice of accepting or declining. Those who decline may become criminal, they may choose to live elsewhere, they may isolate themselves in special communities--all of these events occur. I consider your categorical statement to this effect to fly in the face of the history of the development of social institutions. I may choose to speed while driving on the highway. I do speed at times, but only when i think it will not endanger me or others. If i get pulled over, and ticketed, i don't give the cop any trouble, and i pay the ticket. Various degrees of lawlessness, however could obtain in such a situation, from the simple act of rudeness to the officer (never a good idea), to not paying the ticket (also a bad idea, in the long run) to an all-out high speed chase. In every decision we make about how we will behave each day, we accept or reject what know as the tenets of the social contract, whether or not we use that terminology.

As for the dicsussion of nationalism, i have characterized it as naive. The story of Joan of Arc is a fine example of a people becoming aware of their community of culture and interest. In our modern world, i would opine that only in Africa does one find nations which are in fact artificial constructs. In North and South America, immigration has been so heavy from European nations, as to make for the marginalization of the aboriginal inhabitants (and i'm making no judgment in that statement, just an observation), and the community of culture and interest obtains in those nations. In Asia, concepts of nationalism (China, Iraq, Iran and Thailand being classic examples) were already prevalent at the time of contact with Europeans, or have arisen through a long colonial history, such as the case with Pakistan and India. Most of the nations of this planet are very real entities, sharing language(s), religion(s) and culture(s). To deny that because of a laudable belief in human unity is not only naive, it is obstructive to the process which would prove necessary to the unification of nations. That process, for whatever the details, would require a realization on the part of the residents of nations that there is a universal community of interest, which could be established without doing violence to or submerging the communities of culture.

I did not write that i would feel differently were i the resident of another nation, i wrote that i would likely feel the same.

I didn't take part in the sacrifices that were made to construct my country, yet I reap (IMO) incredible benefits. I don't take my freedom, my rights, or any aspect of my life for granted. I feel citizenship in this country is a gift, and that I am standing on the shoulders of great men and women, receiving the fruit of their labor and sacrifice. I feel I owe them proper care of what I have inherited. As Set said, I may very well feel that way, had I been born in a different country.

Setanta,

Upon re-reading your statement was, indeed, clearly the opposite of what I had read. In any case we can work from there.

I'll skip past the paragraph about abiding by laws as that is something I clearly advocate in an earlier post. I have said many times that I believe that law is the codification of our collective morality and that individually determined morality detracts from peaceful coexistence.

I'll also skip past your rebuttal of wolf's "they are not even a real country anyway" (South Park) argument as I did not make it. Your statement (and I am not reading it so I may misquote) that "planets" don't have relevance to things like taxes etc is something I agree with.

But that does not detract from the fact that one's community need not be one's country. It can extend beyond that and as globalization progresses and contagion becomes a more influential factor it will have to.

You say that bringing the word "nationalism" into the discussion is to introduce a logomachy but I disagree. Tying the word "community" to "country" is to make it an issue of nations and therefore an issue of nationalism.

I do not use the word with the value-laden inferences of militarism and such but have and do note that many do in fact make that leap. You yourself have stated that your military service was part of your payment to your society and that you feel that your debt has been settled.

While you posit it as an individual opinion I note that one's sense of debt can easily be of such varying manefestations so as to render it contradictory. While one might think military service is a payment another might think you are drawing from the bank.

While one might think an individual's debt is to "their country" that individual might feel taht he is better serving his/her country by feeling a more global sense of community. Buying American to one person is a way of giving back, to another buying foreign is a way of utilizing America's greatness to give back to other nations without feeling that their contribution to America is absent.

The element of logomachy exists for me in the word debt. Being born American is to be born with a winning lottery ticket as Sofia just posted but to me a debt is something that is not aleatory. It is a concious decision. I would feel no debt for winning the lottery.

Sofia mentions liberty and other such things that frankly I believe Americans misundertand. Such liberties are a staple of many countries and Americans have an inordinate belief in their responsibility in so far as liberties go.

My qualm is that one's debt to society need not be characerized as a debt to a nation. I spent the majority of my life outside "my country" and yet did not spend sufficient time in the other countries to adpot their nation as my own. The arguments of being a responsible citizen in a society are a no-brainer. But again I highlight that none of the arguments here have made a case as to why that should be defined as a debt to a nation.

Tartarin--

Howso Fox-y? I thought for those who wanted to respond the three choices would suffice. Equal-positive-negative.

It wasn't very complicated, but if you have more complicated comments--they are certainly welcome.

This discussion was not started in any way to push an agenda of what people should be doing, or how they should feel.

Craven--
Your debts are a matter of choice. Hence the question. I feel a debt. You don't. I just asked for opinions. PS-- Yes. I feel indebted to my parents, and duty-bound to them, as well.

This is approaching philosophy... but some say nations are very real entities, yet people can not genetically be distinguished one from the other. There is no essential difference between one human being and another except for certain cultural customs and the sounds that come out of his/her mouth -- unless you sympathize with racist views that equalize colour with essence.

So is culture sufficient to adhere to a nationally atomized worldview ? For me, it isn't, because there is no factual base for it, only an emotional leaning towards tribe sentiments.

And you're quoting something I never said, Craven de Kere. Don't use "" unless you're including an actual phrase of mine, please. You're presenting me as someone less intelligent than I am. The South Park is on you, pal.

Sofia,

There is no negative option. All of your options indicate an acceptance of debt in principle with only the degree of said debt being negotiable.

I do not feel my country owes me anything and I reciprocate. That is simply not an option in the poll.

Not to say that it makes me think yew are foxy though.

You say you feel a debt to your parents. Would you feel said debt had they abandoned you?

And do you reject the notion of the "debt" not being pidgeon-holed by borders?

Certainly, I know plenty of other countries have liberties equal (and possibly surpassing) those of the US.

Why do you think Americans have an inordinate belief in their responsibilties concerning liberty?

wolf--
Countries are necessary for administrative reasons, if nothing else. You saw what happened when the Mongols tried to spread themselves out too thin. I agree that nationality doesn't effect the worth of its people, but come on. (I do appreciate your thoughts on the subject -- )

Because of claims ranging from having invented modern democracy to the ability to grant other peoples freedom at whim.

Americans are also frequently ignorant of the prevalence of liberties in the first world and couch their love for American liberties in a way that suggests singularity.