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

If my parents had abandoned me, I wouldn't owe them diddly.

I thought the Equal option would suit those, who felt they deserved whatever benefits they got from their government--with an added explanation in the thread.

In the very least people pay taxes and obey the law. The three options take into account that people are 'paying something'. And merely asks if they are, or are not, satisfied with the return. It also takes into account the other contributions some make/have made to their country/community.

It seems like such a simple question to me. You be conflagratin'.

But, that didn't happen here! It is almost like people can't talk about their country (especially when its America) without someone sticking this into the conversation.

This is just about individual opinions about what they put into their country, and if they are pleased with the transaction.

So ámn't but now I will. Paying taxes and obeying the law is redundant. Just obeying the law is enough. ;-)

And I contend that it DID happen here. A debt for our liberties ignores their prevalence and also ignores our direct actions to deny them to others in order to maintain our status quo. Feeling a debt to those who have died for your liberty would be more fair if you feel a debt to those killed for our wealth.

I understand that my views here may seem somewhat futuristic. That is only because most humans do not include the universe into their daily lives, although included in it by fact. To draw lines on a planet, call those figures 'states', and then consider oneself different from another person because of one's presence within those lines, is something I try not to do.

CdK, you introduced the term logomachy, and the notion that this was the process here, not i. Your situation, having lived in so many places for long periods of time, while not unique, is nonetheless uncommon. The most of the human race does not venture very far from the place of their birth, even among a relatively affluent people such as the Americans, travel abroad is most often a "vacation," and not a long-term stay. It is in that sense of identifying the nation as the larger community that i have been exaiming this issue. The identity with one's home land runs much deeper than the superificial definitions of nation which have been put forward here. Culture is indeed a very real entity, and it is commonly attributed as the source of our abitlity to describe the world. For a nation to survive and prosper, as has this nation, it is necessary for there to be a certain degree of commonality of culture. But it runs deeper still than that; i recall quite vividly the sensation i experienced, after returning from Ireland (where i had lived, until i was deported), of first smelling the soil of my home. It was what might describe as a transcendant experience, in that i had a suddenly realization of one of the implications of "being home." This may perhaps be something with which you are less familiar--i spent the first nineteen years of my life in this country, before my rich uncle sent me to exotic climes in Asia. In that experience after returning from Ireland, i had an insight into a person's feeling for their home, which i have considered to be justifiably worthy of extrapolation. I would posit that everyone who spends all of their youth in a certain country had the same grateful experience of the sights, and sounds and smells of home. This is something which is "bred in the bone." Were i to surmise about the possibility of "one world" government, i would opine that it is possible, but improbable, because of that love of place which is such a common human trait.

So we have taxes, odor... what else?

That's why there are taxes, because people won't voluntarily support the government financially. I think working three to four months out of the year for the government is enough giving. Entitlements are a myth -- you're taxed and eventually collect a small amount of that money back before you leave the planet (no, not to explore space). Military service is now voluntary but if one has been inducted into the armed forces in their lifetime, they've paid a slightly higher price for living in this country or any country on the planet.

Just a thought: Perhaps there are enormous variations depending, upon other things, on how deep one's roots go in the country. I suspect the answer is counterintuitive. Many of the oldest families are plugged into their communities -- as volunteers, voters, etc. etc. -- in part because their ancestors built those communities and the country. So they take participation and citizenship for granted. The newest citizens might feel very differently, possibly more openly patriotic but less secure. And then there might be enormous gradations in between, depending on the circumstances of one's (or one's family's) arrival in America. Any ideas about that?

I rather believe the depth of one's connection to something called a 'nation' is indicative of his balance between intellectual reflection and emotional attachment. If you think things through, relating yourself to a nation is in essence merely an illusory thing to do.

You're right there, wolf.

When the vast majority of everything I do in my lifetime
(65+% in sneaky little conniving taxes all added up)
is forcibly taken by an organization that falsely claims to represent and
help me, then who owes what to whom?

For just a little smidgeon more, my entire life could belong to
someone else. Every hour of every working day I could be a slave
to an organization that won't even give me a simple "Hi, how are you?"

Let's see ... Perhaps I could just go shoot myself, then I could
be considered a hero for the sacrifice I've made to my country.
Isn't that how it works?

One question: If the mafia charged us 65% tithe to "protect" us,
would you feel proud and loyal to support them, even *before* feeding
your own family?


Personally I owe the People, my friends and neighbors honor and respect,
compassion and support. I would fight to the death for people who stick
by me. But an artificial political machine that constructs so little of value,
yet consumes more than half of what we do each day?

It's a stretch. Tell me good things about government, please! I beg you.
What kind of freedom and liberty are we forcing onto people around the world?

I'd rather be a citizen of IBM or Toyota. At least they produce things,
and give more value than the value taken.

You feel like you pay 65% of what you make? No wonder you're crotchety.

Perhaps you'd like some of your taxes returned...

(OK, first partisan comment by me.)

Appreciate your participation, CodeBorg.

You so better justify this! If by other country hater you mean I get furious with very powerful countries like the US when they abuse their power, sure. However, you would be going to make a case that I "hate" America!

Most patriotism, as I have said many times here, I view as stupid - as with nationalism. I do not claim to be free of it, since I think we have an almost wired-in tendency to identify with our pack, which we have managed (in some cases) to sort of stretch out to cover a country. Oz is easy to do this with, cos we are an island. So, as I said, I am sure I have many elements of this stupidity, but I think it nuts. I also think a little as Setanta does, in that I think there is little to be gained by not recognizing the power of nationalism, however regrettable that might be.

However, I was raised in a particular country (note I did NOT answer about country, for the very reasons I mention above, but about my community - but I did, and do, recognize that as a cop-out) and I have benefitted hugely from the richness and policies of that country. While I consider patriotism in terms of soppy sentiments about how great my country is etc (note, I do not claim to avoid all this crap internally, 'tis sticky, that sugar syrup!) ridiculous, I do consider that I owe a duty to contribute to the future in this country, and in my local community - for both emotional and ethical reasons - (and doubtless psychological ones, too).

I do NOT see a dichotomy between feeling one owes something to the polity that helped give you what you have (and I accept your situation is very different, Craven), in all senses (and there is good and bad in that, of course) and a belief that we also owe globally - (it is even more difficult to figure out what to DO globally, though, and so a lot of my weary focus is here), nor do I necessarily a equate a feeling of gratitude to the community and to the people who worked to create it, to nationalism - at least in the jingoistic sense.

To avoid the obvious path of making this all very political, because I thought Sofia was asking an interesting question, I said nothing about the global/country dichotomy, nor did I seek to differentiate my response from nationalistic thoughts, because I saw no need to do so. Nor did I mention what the richness of my country owes, historically, and today, to the plunder of the third world and such.

I am aware, too, that I chose to consider that Sofia DID ask "if people give back to their community" NOT "if people "owe" their country".

Ok, it's 2am where I am. I've turned away from the sun long ago. You Anglosaxons have at it.

It was interesting.

I have walked into this without having read most of the posts. Forgive if I am not in the flow of the conversation.
I have always loved my home, state, nation and planet. I have a problem with my fellow world citizens in that they allow governments to run corrupt systems at their expense. I will protect my home with all the resources I can muster. I will not fight in a war, unless the leaders of my government can prove to me that the killing and destruction is necessary (It rarely has happened in my 60+ years). I willingly pay my taxes, even though I know more than half of what I pay gets wasted and mis-spent. I pay them because I believe that government is a necessary evil to build infrastructure, oversee and regulate business activities, provide educational opportunities, fight criminal behavior, etc. What I owe my nation is my being a decent and productive person. What it owes me is a fair and balanced excercise of power.

Well said, Edgar. The Bunny has made some cogent points, not the least of which equates to the globalism sham (my term, not hers). People are enjoined to act locally while thinking globally--and this is a fine example of why i am contemptuous of sloganeering as a form of discussion or debate. One needs to be able to express one's meaning, rather than just quoting someone else's buzz phrase. I gave a description of how i thought this should work: working within our own communities and nations to achieve democracy based upon equity and honesty, and having that to offer to the rest of the world. Many people are easily manipulated by slogans and quotes--i know of many people who oppose hydroelectricity in Bangladesh, because of what they contend will be the ecological damage. But the human misery of the heavy flooding which regularly occurs in the major drainage system of the Himalayas is on an enormous scale. Additionally, Bengalis cut down old growth forests for the buidling materials, but more often for the fuel. This contributes to the run off problem which exacerbates the flooding, and their children suffer from respiratory and vision problems all their lives from living in smokey households. The same thing happens in poor communities in Africa and South America in which rural electrification projects based upon hydro-electricity have been opposed by well-meaning but terribly misguided people in the industrial world who preen themselves on "thinking globally"--and who therefore oppose what they consider ecologically unsound programs without a thought for the impact on the populations involved. With more than six billion people on the planet, there aren't simple answers to these problems, and there is much of the criminally naive in the "anti-globalization" crowd. We need captialists and we need industrialization to deal with the populations we have here--we simply don't need to leave them in charge of the game, which is the source of the problems which lead the well-meaning to support "anti-globalization," without having given real thought to the consequences of not providing the systems and economic means to feed, house and provide decent education and medical care for everyone.

Both Miss Wabbit and Edgar have provided well-thought responses, in which they did not rely upon someone else's description, and made their statements in their own terms. I applaud them both.

I guess that as a fledgeling academic, as well as a veteran medic and 10 year combined Active Duty and National Guard soldier, I feel a duty to my fellow human being, and that my duty to my nation is to try and keep it on the path of the straight and narrow. This is one reason I am so offended by those on the far right who challenge the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with Bush and Co. If you have a loved one who is self-destructing, you do your best to turn them from that path, You do NOT cheer them on in their course. Right no my country is engaged in an attempt to destroy evreything that it has ever stood for, and I would be remiss in my duties as a citizen if I stood by waving the flag while I watch it do so.

What Hobitbob said.

Tartarin--
You are also a veteran medic, soldier and in the National Guard! That's incredible! :wink:

Hobitbob --
Nobody on this thread (that I have seen) has impugned anyone's patriotism. But, I can understand, taking into account your service, if someone did, you'd be highly miffed. People are a bit quick to throw out terms like anti-American and unpatriotic, especially with passions so hot, these days. I appreciate your service. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

------------

"We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on." ~Richard P. Feynman