Pinky wrote: I was being figurative in my writing and didn't expect that you would interpret my words so literally. I'll try to take account of your tendency toward literalism in the future so as to not confuse you. I meant that you have not inherited a property interest in America, with reference to the country as a whole, by simple virtue of having been born here. Yes, if it pleases you, I understand that you may have otherwise inherited some piece of property from your kin or acquaintance.
I think it's obvious that I wanted to establish exactly what you were referring to. Good, I'm glad it pleases you that I understand exactly what you are talking about.
Pinky wrote:What birthright is that of which you refer? Is that the birthright of citizenship conferred by accident of birth? I'm sorry, but that birthright only gives you the right to vote and be compelled to serve on jury. Citizenship does not justify your denying freedoms and liberties to others. At any rate, acting out of fear for the security of one's own personal comfort isn't protecting the country. Our principles are that the liberties and freedom we enjoy are here not for our exclusive benefit, but for all who would desire them. We have no birthright in that regard. Liberty and freedom are the principles to safe guard, not our borders, not our language, not our holidays, not our customs and not our pride.
Excuse me, how did you come up with such a distorted view of what citizenship means to me and countless other Americans? American citizenship gives me much more than the right to vote and serve on a jury. I have told you twice what obligations and responsibilities go with citizenship. Unfortunately, some people do not understand that nor would they act on it if they did. We do have the freedom to choose.
Citizenship does give me the right to make sure our laws aren't changed and/or eliminated to accommodate people like you with weird ideas who naively think that freedom and liberty come without rules and laws.
Your rhetoric No Doubt sounds good to you, but the reality is that if your principles were put into effect it would destroy liberty and freedom for everyone because of the chaos of anarchy.
We cannot have freedom and liberty if we do not safeguard our borders, language, holidays, institutions, laws, etc. If you don't think so then you are terribly naive about human behavior. Do you honestly think that people coming here from all over the world would embrace our way of life? What would happen if they didn't? Think about that. What would happen if they didn't?
Pinky wrote:Actually, it also means it has the right to decide who gets a bullet through the head and who gets to live in a palace. Big whoop. I thought we were talking about principles?
Principles relate to real life. And yes, sovereignty does mean deciding who is executed, arrested, etc. If we don't relate principles to real life then they are worthless.
Pinky wrote:Well, our ancestors, the founders of our country, if I get your meaning, were pretty much revolutionaries. I'm guessing King George would have thought them to be lawless anarchists. So I think your alluding to that pack of libertarians does not serve to further your argument. By the way, those scoundrels didn't establish laws to prevent people from finding freedom and liberty in their newly formed country; go figure.
Who cares what King George thought. For you to say that alluding to the founding fathers does not serve to further my argument is absurd.
If the founding fathers had established a country without laws then there would not have been a country Pinky! Your theory of anarchy as a utopia of freedom and liberty is an impossibility. It would never exist because it could not exist.
Pinky wrote:Hitler very much employed rhetoric appealing to ultra-nationalism in promoting himself and the Nazis into power. The method of ultra-nationalism is most definitely to appeal to, and work on, a group's sense of pride in culture and heritage. What, otherwise, do you think the Nazi propagandists where promoting? Haven't you ever seen the photos of those gargantuan Nazi rallies? Those were carefully orchestrated to instill pride, loyalty and a sense of destiny among the participants.
Yes, you are right that Hitler did play on national pride by orchestrating the huge rallies. But, that was a special circumstance of a country in crisis and they reached out to what they thought was a beacon of hope to escape their miserable existence.
Normal, healthy pride in one's country, school, accomplishment's, area, neighborhood, family, and ethnicity is not a bad thing. It helps to keep people on the path of wanting keep their neighborhoods clean for one thing, to take good care of what they have. People in poor countries scatter garbage everywhere. You must have seen that haven't you? It's a symptom of the decay in their spirit as well as their physical everyday existence. Pride is a good thing if it is used properly.