Patriotism

I would like to provide definitions for a few terms. Nation: 1 : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities usually with its own territory and government 2 : the territory of a nation Patriotism as defined by Webster's Dictionary: A feeling of love and devotion to one's own homeland. Now I will continue my refutation of your points. 1. This definition directly contradicts your first point. Patriotism is certainly a part of some people's identitys, but it is by no means the most important part of their identity. There is no reason that just because they love their own nation that they will automatically view all other nations as competing and make no moves to support them.(Which is what you said) 2. A nation is a very real and concrete structure. It is materially represented by the government and laws. It has a huge effect on it's citizens through law's and it's actions. It has material representation in the territory it controls. Your argument that it ha no value at the deepest and most instinctual levels is deeply flawed. Honestly, very little has a real signifigance when you get to the core of instinctual and natural impulses of life. Saying that patriotism is one of those things does nothing to help support your point. 3. What you are talking about is not patriotism. Patriotism can, and most often is, merely a love of one's country. It does not mean that you are automatically xenophobic, or that you will dismiss other's beliefs. While some people who are xenophobic or narrow minded are patriots, you are in error when you automatically say one causes the other, when there is little but slight anecdotal evidence to that effect. There are many patriots who wholeheartedly support open discussion and debate about their countrie's policies. As James MAdison once said "It is because I love my country that I question it." 4. If that was your point then I fail to see how it has anything to do with patriotism. This point is not topical. You have failed to provide evidence as to why patriotism has any role in American greed. I will now rebuild my points and disprove your refutations. 1. Having an army is not for one individual's specific benefit, it is for the good of everyone. Without an army it would be impossible for anyone to prevent a hostile force from killing, taking power, and just generally destroying at will. Everyone benefits from having an army. 2. There is no reason that patriots must share their government's values. I think that you would be hard pressed to find any signifigant amount of people who honestly beleive that bribery and death and destruction for wealth are good. Again, you have made a fundamental attribution error as to the cause of an action, and you have made this error on shaky anecdotal evidence at that. And your final point: People need to have some sort of set of values. Without some core principles and beleifs, it would be inpossible to ever make any meaningful decisions. I would argue that patriotism will only be good for the nation, as it will bind it together and make it easier for the nation to protect the interest's of it's people. As to your assertion that "A population full of skeptics would make much better decisions, than a bunch of overly loyal patriots", you have betrayed yourself with your choice of adjectives. The key word in that sentence is overly loyal. being overly loyal to anything will be bad, not just being overly loyal to one's country. The mere word "overly" by definition makes an idea bad. My point here is that we are not arguing whether "overly loyal" patriotism is bad, we are arguing whether patriotism is bad. You are using overly extreme examples that are not representative of any greater whole, and that are highly subjective and biased. In summary, patriotism is a positive force for good. It helps bind us together in pursuit of common goals. Without patriotism, we never would have formed societies of any sort. Without enthusiam, we would have never survived as a race.