As for restrictions on the state, etc., no state would agree to turn its welfare over to the nation, except where it already has done so (military, higher courts, etc.). Where the state has not agreed but the nation requires, these actions are done at the point of a gun. When the state fights the nation on such matters, de facto the state believes it should be in control of its own well being or why else fight? When the nation forces otherwise, it’s tyranny. When countries force America for example to do their bidding, it’s also tyranny.

Then why bother having the country in the first place? Why not restrict to the state, or the county, or the city? If there’s an argument for turning over the well being of your city to your country, then there’s an argument for doing the same with your country to the world (or at least some of the world). If you object to that, then you need a different argument to base your objection on.

As for patriotism, I wouldn’t turn over the well being of America over to world desires any more than I would turn my individual well being over to my neighbor. He doesn’t know what’s good for me better than I do. Why would any country or group of countries know better for than the country itself?

Good point. I was thinking along the lines of “you know enough about other countries to know they aren’t fabulous compared to yours, but no more”. Or, more formaly, if you have a Bayesian estimate of the “goodness” of the other country, then the piece of the estimate that exceeds the value for your country isn’t interesting enough for you to want to refine the estimate.

The “interest” depends on a lot of things, such as the actual distribution, your estimate of how much effort would be required to refine it, and how much that knowledge would make a practical difference to you (would you move to that copuntry? Start emulating its values? Defer to its interests somehow?).

If we’re trying to avoid bias, then the only justification for patriotism is ignorance – my country’s good, I don’t know enough about other countries to decide, so I’ll go with my country generally. This a real case for patriotism – checking out other countries’ values is time-consumming and may not be worth it.

But I also have to admit that currently, patriotism is more often found on what we could term “the right” in many countries. So defending/crticising it could be a proxy for other political values. But this changes throughout history (in revolutionary France, patriotism was proclaimed by the jacobin left versus the internationalist aristocracy, and Stalin’s Russia hardly lacked patriotism). But if we avoid these proxy debates, and focus on the real issues, then I feel that bias is the only thing that patriotism contributes to a debate.

Because Saudi Arabia attracts masses of immigrants, to choose just one example. But money isn’t the only thing “gaming” the system – culture and language (why do Pakistanis move to England so often?) and even the wheather (why do nordic countries attract so few immigrants?). There’s also repulsion factors to consider – some countries (the USA is a good example) are extremely attractive to some people, and very repulsive to others, while others are blander. Migrations wouldn’t capture that repulsion, just note it as a non-migration. Some people would love to work in a country, but would never raise a family there.

Your question, by eliminating the choice of a close ally, makes it hard to imagine the other country having values that are equally good.

Well, to refine the question a little bit:
A political party you disagree with has come to power in your country. You are offered a choice (ignore the practicalities here) of living under that political party, or picking another country, and a political party of your choice in that country, and having them take over your own land. What would you go for?

I’m British, and rather than living under a certain major party (I’ll let you guess which one I’d prefer to have Britain taken over by the “good guys” from: the USA, Canada, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India (recent addition to my list), South Korea, Chile (not entirely certain there).

If the party in power in my own country was an extremist one, then I’d extend my list to include: Turkey, Israel, Lebannon, Argentina, Brazil, and Japan (I’m sure I’ve missed a lot of countries I’m less familiar with).

There’s a definite bias in my list, but I hope nationalism isn’t it.

This is an easy one: Switzerland.

This stance is highly contingent on who you define as a US Patriot.

Exactly. I consider myself a US patriot because I distrust my government, and I consider those that do trust the government unpatriotic.

This is my first visit to this site. I plan on visiting it often. Great comments! (They’re much better than mine.)

If you look at the debate from a worldwide perspective, why take the stance of an EU patriot over a USA patriot? Are self described non-patriots generally more or less likely to be on one side of the political spectrum or on an extreme side in general? Extreme patriotism is unhealthy, but does that mean that its complete absence is preferable?

Your question, by eliminating the choice of a close ally, makes it hard to imagine the other country having values that are equally good.