Discover more from Overcoming Bias
Via Bryan Caplan, we get this quote from my favorite author, Leo Tolstoy:
If an American wishes the preferential grandeur and well-being of America above all other nations, and the same is desired by his state by an Englishman, and a Russian, … and all of them are convinced that these desires need not only not be concealed or repressed, but should be a matter of pride … and if the greatness and wellbeing of one country or nation cannot be obtained except to the detriment of another nation, … – how can war be avoided?
And so, not to have any war, it is … necessary to … destroy what produces war. … the desire for the exclusive good for one’s own nation – what is called patriotism. And so to abolish war, it is necessary to abolish patriotism, and to abolish patriotism, it is necessary to it is necessary first to become convinced that it is an evil, and that is hard to do.
Bryan comments:
A hundred years later, Tolstoy seems more perceptive than ever. In the modern world, how often do countries actually have anything to fight about?
I intend to take this position: I prefer what is good for the world, over what is good for my country, and when USA patriots disagree with others about what is good for the world, I’m not particularly likely to take their side. But I wonder: Do I really take this position?
Tolstoy on Patriotism
If the country has power over the state, it's because of contractual obligations. In America, this is called the constitution. I'm aware of no contract that America has signed with the rest of the world that would obligate it to some global action, any more than any other country has done the same. Yes, there's an argument for turning your well being over to another: through a contract agreed by both sides.
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.
Why would any country or group of countries know better than the country itself?
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.