The True Meaning of Patriotism

well stated

first of all great comment.
second of all .. i don't know how to recommend comments on current.com
:)

Thanks. :)

Sadly, I do not know how to recommend comments either. Perhaps this function is limited to special Current users. :x

After you make a certain number of comments, the ability to recommend other's comments becomes available to you.

Well, what in your opinion creates a happy populace?

@ NJPatriot:

I'm sure I don't have to tell you what makes people happy.

That said, you may want to check this out:

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Also, in a separate list from 2006, the happiest countries were reportedly:

1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada

How does that separate list quantitatively define individual happiness? What was the reporting methodology?

By the way, you are by no means compelled to tell me what you think makes a country of people, on the whole, happy. But doing so would be a big step forward in substantiating such a lofty premise with factual truth. That's why I asked. It was not rhetorical.

"The study, conducted by the University of Leicester, compiled data from 178 countries and 100 global studies to map happiness across the world and found that countries with good access to healthcare and education came out on top."

...in addition to healthcare and education, you can also fathom that keeping a low-profile (as a country) and maintaining a strong sense of community are also correlative factors.

But for more specific analysis, the PDF link right above the list I posted offers much more.

You stated that the list was derived from a second source.

Yes, I know...

Obviously there is no "definitive" list. That's why I offered two different lists. The assumed intent was that you'd look for countries that ranked well in both lists, to get a general idea.

"Freedom" is an ideological concept. Most people don't care about the principle of "political freedom" so much as they care about spending time with loved ones and simply feeling satisfied with their life's achievements.

Your inability to understand how someone could possibly be happy without necessarily being technically "free" reflects a blatant American ideological bias. As an example, the Chinese support their government more than any other country in the world, and yet clearly the PRC is not "free". Americans are freer than the Chinese, and yet they're not happier with their government. Even if you account for possible cultural bias, fellow East Asians the Japanese are even less happy with their government than Americans, and clearly their government allows them to be freer than the Chinese.

For the record, Brunei is one of the world's highest-ranking countries in terms of GDP per capita. Bhutan, meanwhile, strongly values its cultural identity.

The political/ideological notion of "freedom", you see, is not all there is to life.

Allright, let's cut to the chase then. Assuming the list you provided uses a similar methodology as the survey conducted in the PDF, here are a couple of points to ponder:

1. If I am a criminal, and I'm making a pretty good living killing, stealing, and extorting, I might rate my personal satisfaction as "high" overall. A country of criminals might similarly rate their overall satisfaction as "high" because on the whole, they are all pretty happy with the system of killing and robbing each other. That doesn't make this country a good place to live for people who do not share these predatory values.

2. I think people have a tendency to look at the positives in their own personal lives over the negatives. Keeping a positive outlook and telling yourself "I could be a lot worse off" is a great psychological adaptation that helps people lead full and productive lives. Therefore, most people are probably likely to rate themselves as "doing OK" at a minimum. Ask the same people to rate their opinion of their government and I suspect you'd see different results.

3. Last time I checked, correlation does not imply causation. This does not prove that socialized healthcare contributes to happiness any more than it proves pickled herring contributes to happiness.

Not to discount the data, mind you - I just don't think one can legitimately draw the sort of conclusions you appear to be. I personally think that attempting to force this vision of a totalitarian, socialist utopia on the half of America that wants to be left the hell alone is likely to result in a lot of unhappy Americans on both sides of the fence.

@ NJPatriot:

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions.

1. A "nation of criminals"? Sorry, but but a "nation of criminals" would not be happy. If everyone in your country was a criminal, that would make YOU a potential victim. Do you really think people working in drug cartels or illegal brothels are "happy"?

2. Don't quite see the connection you're trying to make. Clearly, having a government you *like* is going to make you happier than having a government you *don't like*. That's just common sense.

3. Last time I checked, I never said correlation implies causation. However, it *is* true that you cannot have causation without correlation. Therefore, you look at the correlating factors, and you use your *intelligence* to figure out the most likely causation factors. You can reject socialized healthcare and "totalitarian, socialist utopia" (I hope you know that NONE of those countries are "totalitarian" - please stop being delusional), but if not these shared characteristics that are right in front of you, then WHAT?

Rejecting everything as irrelevant without offering anything in substitution is completely pointless. If they're happy, then clearly whatever their doing is working. Did it ever occur to you that the happiest countries in the world might not be happy *despite* their "socialized healthcare", but rather *because* of it? There are other factors, of course - all of which I've already mentioned.

Honestly, I didn't even intend for this to be about socialism in the first place. I simply posted the lists, and your subsequent interpretation led you to make a conclusion of your own.

1. How do you support your position that "A nation of criminals would not be happy"?

2. The connection I am trying to make is that the methodology used in the PDF would, in my opinion, tend to level out the true, objective cross-country levels of individual happiness, as the universal human tendency would be to rate your personal contentedness on the median of the scale, regardless of how quantitatively better your direct socio-economic counterpart is actually fairing under a different system.

3. I never stated that any of the countries in question were socialist, totalitarian, or even had healthcare of any sort. I haven't even looked at the lists. I am simply cautioning against drawing conclusions that are not directly supported by fact.

What I am trying to point out is that your statement that a country's success may be measured by the happiness of its citizens sounds pretty and nice and everything, but it is not in any way useful. You cannot derive from this statement a methodology of making people happy without greatly expounding upon it far beyond the original scope.

Speaking for myself and many others in this country, freedom makes me happy. A lack of freedom makes us very unhappy, and my overarching point is that when you attempt to take freedom away from a group of people who really like freedom, it is likely to result in unhappiness for both the ones doing the taking and the ones being taken from.

Therefore, freedom in America is important because its presence provides happiness, and its absence provides unhappiness. Your attempted juxtaposition of "freedom" and "happiness" is, at best, utterly nonsensical. Prefer it all you want. It doesn't make the statement useful.

1. I already supported my position. If you can't see how living in a crime-ridden country would make you unhappy, there's really nothing more I can do for you.

2. Huh?

3. I didn't make this about socialism. You did.

4. Huh? So what you're saying is that freedom makes Americans happy because freedom makes Americans happy. Well, duh - if something makes you happy, then it will of course make you happy. But your claim that somehow freedom makes *Americans* happy, but not necessarily other people, simply adds to my aforementioned statement that this reflects a distinctly American bias, and, put bluntly, someone not brainwashed to value freedom above all else would therefore not find his or happiness limited to how "free" he or she is.

Yes, if someone values freedom, freedom will make him happy. If someone values video games, video games will make him happy. This isn't about any inherent quality of freedom or video games; this is about individual personal preference. If burning the American flag makes some conservative Iranians happy, that doesn't mean burning the American flag is an inherently joyful activity shared universally by all of mankind. It is simply a product of one country's particular culture.

Things such as health, safety, security, family, friends, community, education, and peace are NOT.

Huh, indeed.

I'm glad we've reached an accord.

We have done no such thing. I continue to find your methodology, conclusions, and motives highly suspect. I have yet to see in your arguments any rational justification whatsoever for your initial stated opinion. I continue to disagree with the usefulness of this statement and I continue to find it outright absurd.

In short, Madam, we quite clearly do not agree. But I do appreciate the overall civility of the exchange.

What? I've written entire *paragraphs* of "rational justification" for my initial stated opinion. I really don't know what more you can expect. Even more outrightly absurd is your claim that you find my "motives highly suspect".

...what?? What does that even mean? What is so hard to understand about the possibility of being happy, regardless of your level of political freedom? What about people who desire the "freedom" to have access to health care, regardless of whether or not they can afford it? "Freedom" is an abstract concept and can be stretched in any way. Many Chinese prefer the "freedom" to be governed by the CCP, rather than be subjected to the West's idealization of democracy.

Different things make different people happy. If you can't understand that, this conversation needs to end because it will go nowhere.

I did not mean to frustrate you. I simply wanted you to read and understand the points I was making so that you would see WHY I think your premise is faulty.

I still believe that countries with higher levels of freedom are more likely to be happy. You say that freedom is an ideological concept, and I find that absurd. Happiness is much an ideological concept than freedom. Brunei or Bhutan may have a high GDP rate, but who does this really represent? I doubt it represents the country as a whole. We can see from this country that the majority of people are unhappy. We also have a high GDP, but most of the money is in the hands of an elite 2%.

You can't measure happiness, in any regard. You can, however, measure freedom. I would agree that your research is flawed and highly suspect.

China may seem happy, but you're not asking all of the residents. What about the Tibetans or the Uighars? They are brutally oppressed on a day-to-day basis. What about them? Or do they not count? Without civil liberties or political freedom, how can a person be happy. They can't live their lives fully. I find that confusing.

Bah, so many logical fallacies.

1. Yes, countries with higher levels of freedom are more likely to be happy. But freedom does not necessarily equal happiness.

2. Happiness is a pure emotion. Freedom is not. Freedom is more ideologically principled than happiness. A child can recognize happiness, but not freedom.

3. GDP per-capita was not the only factor used to measure those countries' happiness. The fact is, people in Brunei and Bhutan are happier than us. Freer or not, they are happier. If you refuse to believe it's because of GDP per-capita, there are many other factors involved, only one of which is freedom. For the record, Bhutan has a fairly low GDP per-capita, and it is not particularly free.

4. You can't measure happiness? Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous. Yes, you can. I can tell when I'm happy, and so can anyone else who isn't mentally retarded.

5. 92% of China's population is Han. 'Nuff said.

6. Tibetans and Uyghurs are only "brutally oppressed" when they express political dissidence. And even then, they are oppressed no more than Han political dissidents. Yes, they lack self-determination, but no, they are not "brutally oppressed", so long as they support the CCP.

7. Without civil liberties or political freedom, how can a person be happy? First off, we're not exactly talking Iran vs. USA. Obviously there are basic fundamental human rights, such as the freedom to live in peace and prosperity. But beyond that, those who are politically apathetic have other priorities to worry about.

Cultural tendencies could explain quite a bit of self professed "happiness" vs. "unhappiness" but I think in the long term freedom is the only insurance against oppression and the only assurance of long term economic prosperity.

Denmark's has the worlds highest taxes, and it continues to get higher, and more of the population is employed by expanding bureaucracies. At the same time social obligations and social policies are becoming more expensive to maintain and less efficient. As far as health care goes the USA produces most of the innovations in medicine and export them at a loss. We in effect subsidize Denmark's, and the worlds, health care. The real GDP of Denmark is shrinking and unemployment is going up. Denmark's growth was low before but has been negative for the last two years. Their productive population is shrinking as people leave for better opportunities. These countries are happy because they are getting many services for "free" but the bill is coming. Without economic flexibility they will be in real danger of becoming insolvent, then they will either have to print, borrow or tax more. They cant raise taxes that much more, Denmark's income tax is 63% and their value added tax is 25%, they are a service economy and have very little natural resources so it would be very difficult to borrow and printing would cause inflation or worse yet hyperinflation. They are balanced on the edge of a cliff a don't realize it. So yes you can be happy for a time without freedom but I don't know for how long.

BTW this barely scratched the surface of their economic vulnerabilities and worsening problems maybe you should look up the countries on this list and see for yourself how their long term prospects for happiness look. I have nothing against happiness but anybody can sacrifice long term financial and social viability for short term happiness but in the long run this unsustainable. Without a strong economy services can not be maintained. You just have to do a little ethical calculus to realize that if too much power is concentrated in too few individuals that it becomes more likely, and over the long term assured, that for abuses will take place and their effects will be magnified.

In the end, calm, after reading all these, I have to disagree with you on one overwhelming statement you made in your first post.

Just because someone, including an entire country, is happy, does not mean that they are living the best way possible in accordance with standards of morality.

Take the story of the anime "Death Note", for example. Eventually, Kira, essentially a mass murderer who is able to kill by writing a person's name in the Death Note, becomes law, and he (for the majority of the series) only kills criminals. The majority of the population accepts this way of life and goes on about, fearful, but still -quite happy- with the way they are living.

Freedom, while does not create the most happiness (which is a completely arbitrary value; it could also be seen as a zero sum game, whereas one country is using lots of resources and is overall a very happy country, but sucks the resources out of nearby countries which suffer), allows for happiness, sadness, and most importantly, critical analysis of the Government and its people, to do the right thing.

Doing the right thing usually isn't easy, and it usually doesn't always make you happy. Corruption is inevitable; Freedoms can be abused, twisted, taken advantage of... but at least we have the option to try and root out corruption instead of being told to shut up and "just be happy". That's why it's the right thing.

@ JosephJinx:

Sorry, but in your attempt to make a point via anime, you seem to have lost track of reality, which is that the happier countries - Denmark, Sweden, Finland, etc. - are all already happier than the more wasteful countries (the US).

Moreover, my point was that happiness reigns supreme. If resources are used up, then clearly people will not be happy. I never said "immediate happiness", and my "philosophy" does not discredit the notion of ensuring long-term happiness by using resources efficiently.

On top of that, a country that wastes resources at other countries' expenses is still succeeding as an individual country. If the assumption is that the entire international community ought to be happy, then cooperative sharing of resources is perfectly possible, and in no way contradicts my statement.

Lastly, I fail to see the relevance of your Death Note reference. Were they...not happy? Or what? The notion that criminality is punished doesn't seem particularly pertinent to anything at hand.

The fact that those other countries are happier is fine, and I wasn't trying to debunk that in any way. My main problem is that many countries that are happy profit off of other countries that are economically distraught as it is. Even those countries you mentioned - Denmark, etc., likely use products and services from companies that exploit workers in other countries. This is still generating a decrease in happiness and welfare in other areas, even if it's not directly resources.

I don't get how happiness can reign supreme in place of freedom. Could you clarify? Could you also clarify what freedoms are less important than happiness?

The point of the Death Note reference is meant to be realistically hypothetical; humans have the ability to be happy, without freedoms to speak out against an overbearing force that is ensuring their happiness, even when there is massive suffering and injustices being done by said force. It's called denial, and it's quite hard to put another question on your happiness poll that says, "Do you feel your happiness is pure, or do you feel it is a mental defense mechanism because you are at a complete loss of hope for your country to turn around?"

Without a certain level of freedom, there would be no solid or fair ground to speak out against those injustices, thereby ensuring less actual happiness across the world.

But ensuring that resources are shared evenly would require a certain amount of freedoms, as we have seen in the past that countries with lack of freedoms have generally and ultimately generated a corrupt leadership that has then been able to carry out plans with no oversight or worry for how their populous will react. Not that corruption doesn't exist in free countries, but it's at least able to be spoken out against.

Also, where are you going to get your ratings for happiness in a country that doesn't have any freedoms? Likely, an organization that would find it beneficial for the rest of the world to perceive their country as quite happy.

Your statement makes sense, but is a bit too ideal to fit into "reality". Ultimately, happiness is an -emotion- that can be judged on different levels by different people, according to individual subjective reality. A subjective emotion is not a good base for a system of governing people's lives; you'd essentially have a theocracy of happiness.

The fact is if we were not setting up dictators and all up in everyone's business in the world they would have no reason to bomb us. In case nobody here has noticed, Switzerland just goes about it's business without any terrorist issues.

Kenny I could not agree with you more. The founders would be rolling around in their graves if they could see what America has become!

Kenny you took the words right out of my mouth

You say "just" as if inserting that word makes your misguided opinion some sort of grand, insightful insult.

Well, I suppose it's to be expected. Just another frustrated Democratic-Republican spreading more smug, elitist claptrap.

"Just" practicing a little free speech. Being a lunitarian and trying to wave the constitution around as if you respect it, you should be aware that there is a small section in there about free speech. Peace.

Was njpatriot infringing on your right to free speech there? Doesn't he also have the freedom of speech so that he can challenge any opinions or suggestions you might have made? You might be confusing confrontation with censorship.

Just making a point. You people stick together like a bunch of schoolyard bullies. I will give it to you on one point, you're well organized. But, so were the Nazis. Have you noticed how fast this story is dropping?

"'Just' practicing a little free speech."

Good. Good for you. What, exactly, does that have to do with the point I made?

"Being a lunitarian..."

Sir, I take offense. I am a contrarian. The moon you may keep.

"...and trying to wave the constitution around as if you respect it, you should be aware that there is a small section in there about free speech."

I am well aware of that. Unfortunately for you, there is a large difference between having the right to speak your mind and having the right to not have others point out how foolish and pigheaded your opinions are.

" Peace."

How incongruous.

Sorry, moonunit. NJpatriot, if you take offense to something this mild you are on the wrong site. I usually try not to offend, but there is an exception to every rule. As far as discongruous is concerned, it seems that your writing teacher was Gollum. As far as sticking to a point goes, maybe the one on top of your head.

Sorry, moonunit. NJpatriot, if you take offense to something this mild you are on the wrong site. I usually try not to offend, but there is an exception to every rule. As far as discongruous is concerned, it seems that your writing teacher was Gollum. As far as sticking to a point goes, maybe the one on top of your head.

God I hate republicrats! Haha, libertarians are disgruntled republicans....what a joke! Almost every libertarian I have met hates the elitist corporate backed republicans AND HAS HATED THE REPUBLICANS just as much as the elitist corporate backed democrats. That's like saying the democrats are just disgruntled republicans.....And how the hell did he infringe on your 1st amendment right? I can't take this much stupidity....name calling and hatred thrown first by those who can't even DEBATE THE FUCKING TOPIC! How sad, that so many people around us are morons.

No offense taken, bluestranger, but I think I am on exactly the right site.

You see, I believe every man has the right to speak his mind, no matter how foolish it makes him look. That's why I'm here - to defend your rights.

The world is not so idealogically bifurcated as you've been led to believe.

Wow Mike, you didn't know. These are comments and replies to comments. Guess I'll have listen to your show and try to find out what you consider a debate. Was this big debate you had with the socialist in the same room or a callin? Oh, and the Republican hating thing. Isn't Dr. Paul a Republican?
NJ, I stand corrected. If your goal is to appear foolish then you are correct. This is the perfect site for you.

Actually, that's a bit of a myth. American legion did some research- a large number of them are middle class, and upper middle class. But it's a persistent myth.

i'll remember that when I see the recruiters come to beverly hills. Oh wait, they don't go there....

RaceBannon,

Beverly Hills isn't middle class. Just saying.

Not backing up either statistic either way.....

no i know, just wanted to point out that rich kids aren't fighting wars. Not sure about the middle class stats either...

And they would be 100% right. America for most of its history stood for the freedom of white land owners. From its inception to today money talks and bullshit walks. Its probable one of the best places to be in the world and it has done wonderful things but dont forget for a minute that it was built on the backs of the people we oppressed be it native, immigrant or just poor.

I would not tell you that....

~Fufufufu...

You probably also reap the most benefits from being patriotic. Ask your colored and minority friends if they get the same advantages of being patriotic.

I'm a vet, that doesn't think less of my fellow citizen for not serving.

If most of what a person has to say is negative, I think they want to respond and engage topics but lack the skill ... and 'act' antagonistic out of frustration but that is just one mans opinion.

I comment on things, as anyone may; that are simply important to me. I speak my mind and not become concerned with which side my comments lay. With a background that is as American as Apple pie.

To try to impress my personal concept of 'patriotism' on all around me is frankly abrasive. Rather i leave a brief ...-

It's remarkable to realize we have a choice , each and every day; regarding 'our' attitude toward how 'we' embrace ...the day, each other and our tasks; life where we live.

Reminded of things we can NOT change- the past, the inevitable... and the fact that people will act a certain way. 'Reminded' because , that is a lesson that has teeth if one may forget.

The only thing we can do is 'play' the one string 'we' have; our attitude.People do help others with genuine words of concern.

America is much more than special interests...pride runs deep indeed!

Patriotism- I'll let someone else decide, life is complex enough.But try to do something about the liberties of the people and i may not be so polite.

unclecharlie, kudos for your unquestioning patriotism. People like you were the reason Orwell wrote 1984, and freud lost faith in humanity. To be quite honest i feel bad for you.

As a member of the Marine Corps, I loyally served my country. As a veteran, I'm a realist. The United States has committed some major crimes against the people of the world, and within this country. I question the actions of my leaders, because I'm a patriot.

I want what's best for this country, because I'm a patriot. Being a patriot means that you are willing to question. Following without asking questions is foolish. It will kill you, like a lemming walking off of a cliff.

I saw reports coming out of Iraq when I was serving, and I was disgusted. I questioned what our war aims were. Still waiting on that response.

By all means, be patriotic. Just don't be stupid about it.

You Republicans have WHORED out the words Liberty and Patriotism so much they have no meaning anymore. You Time is up, saying things 5 times on TV doesnt make it the truth anymore. WE ALL see through your lies and deception. Dont like it LEAVE!!!!!!!!!
but no one on earth will take anyone with that much hate, except the Talaban (I hear they might be hiring).

I just completed a six year enlistment in the Navy and I am very liberal. You offend me.

what liberties are the Obama admin trampling on. You mean the continuing of the spying on American citizens put into place by the Bush admin, or continuing the illegal war in Iraq, started by the Bush admin? Or maybe the fact that the American people selected and elected a president with Enron and the rest having the final say. Or maybe because they believe in the Constitution set up by our founding fathers to keep religion and state separate. Too bad Truman added In God We Trust on the money since for over a hundred years it was doing fine till then. Want prayer in school, just make sure I get my time to pray to my God and have my sacred statues in the Capital.

I am sorry your man and party lost but that called a free election. The people won this one, enjoy, it may be our last.

There was no one worthy to vote for...so 'my man' most certainly is not 'your man', and those having been fooled into voting 'your man' into power will find that we the people have lost...once again.!
I believe that those who think it will turn out well under the B O plenty potus era are going to be greatly disappointed.

I may not have 100% confidence he is the man for the job but I do have 100% he will restore dignity to the office something that has been lacking the last 8 years. It will be hard for him or anyone not republican to get the job done when the opposition stated from day one they will do all they can to see that the winner fails. Sour grapes. Rep or dem once the election is over they should be concerned about the country and its citizens not their own fortunes and pride. Bush and Cheney done alot of damage to our image here and aboard and if the only thing Obama does is restores it, then he has succeeded. He is in the position Gerry Ford was should he or shouldn't he pardon Nixon and which is best for the country. Khrushchev words have more meaning today then when he first said them, and we are doing our best to prove him right.