What? I’d drop the ‘under god’ part, but that isn’t really what I was talking about. My not agreeing with everything the country does, does not have the pledge as its subject matter.
That is, say, the unjustified wars, etc.. The whole laundry list. The particular method of choosing representation in our government - ‘plurality of first preference’ voting, with closed primary elections, and districts chosen in a partisan way. There’s a reason congress is as messed up as it is.
Because states are still a powerful force for (or against) change in this world, you are limited in the number of them you can directly affect (determined largely by where you and relatives were born), and for political and psychological reasons that ability is diminished when you fail to display loyalty (of the appropriate sort, which varies by group) to those states.
Then the obvious strategy is to start feeling lots of loyalty toward Easily Affected Country, and donate lots to organizations in Powerful Country that effect change in Easily Affected Country. This diminishes your political bonus but the extra leverage compensates. Bot-swa-na! Bot-swa-na!
I actually think the apple pie reason is an unusually good one. There’s nothing wrong with cheering for things.
You’re assuming that display of loyalty can radically increase your influence. My model was that your initial influence is determined situationally, and your disposition can decrease it more easily than increase it.
That said, let’s run with your interpretation; Bot-swa-na! Bot-swa-na!
Why? In other words, which parts of the pledge would you keep, and which would you change/remove and why?
What? I’d drop the ‘under god’ part, but that isn’t really what I was talking about. My not agreeing with everything the country does, does not have the pledge as its subject matter.
That is, say, the unjustified wars, etc.. The whole laundry list. The particular method of choosing representation in our government - ‘plurality of first preference’ voting, with closed primary elections, and districts chosen in a partisan way. There’s a reason congress is as messed up as it is.
But it’s my messed-up country.
Why is it your messed-up country?
Because its laws treat you well, and you want to support that system out of gratitude?
Because you’ve lived there a while, and you’re attached to things in it?
Because you were born there, and… that matters for some reason?
Because you have relative from there, and ditto?
Because you have relatives from elsewhere, and it sucked, so you cheer for the least-bad country?
Because bald eagles look awesome and apple pie is delicious, so you have positive emotional associations to the corresponding countries?
I wonder if “rationality of patriotism” has been discussed on LW? Probably in the context of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Something like that was discussed here.
Because states are still a powerful force for (or against) change in this world, you are limited in the number of them you can directly affect (determined largely by where you and relatives were born), and for political and psychological reasons that ability is diminished when you fail to display loyalty (of the appropriate sort, which varies by group) to those states.
Also, apple pie is delicious.
Then the obvious strategy is to start feeling lots of loyalty toward Easily Affected Country, and donate lots to organizations in Powerful Country that effect change in Easily Affected Country. This diminishes your political bonus but the extra leverage compensates. Bot-swa-na! Bot-swa-na!
I actually think the apple pie reason is an unusually good one. There’s nothing wrong with cheering for things.
Wouldn’t that… if enough people did it… I mean, wouldn’t it sort of… work?
Wait, that wasn’t serious?
You’re assuming that display of loyalty can radically increase your influence. My model was that your initial influence is determined situationally, and your disposition can decrease it more easily than increase it.
That said, let’s run with your interpretation; Bot-swa-na! Bot-swa-na!