I do not feel that America can be socialist in the Scandinavian sense. There is way too much diversity, identity politics and such for a non-statist form of collectivist action. We need a new syndicalist order, and a nationalistic one; with collaboration between groups, corporations, races, and social classes. The achieving of an all powerful, all-encompassing State through which every citizen is moblized and marches together to the beat of the drum, with direct democracy via referendum and all things done for the good and glory of the people and their State.
We need a welfare state, with nationalized healthcare. All industry and commerce vital to the functioning of the people's State to be nationalized immediately. With strict protectionism in trade, arbitration of labour disputes, and regulation of corporations for the good of every man, done of course by the State. And we need a press that is run by the State and overseen by ethics committees made up of private citizens.
This has to be the most blatantly un-American sentiment I have heard in a long, long while and represents the polar opposite of the thinking which went into the Declaration of Independence. You know not for what you are asking--even if you were an enemy of mine I wouldn't wish such a country upon you.
I want a nation of dissent. I want a nation of independent thinkers who do not rely upon their neighbors for anything. I want a nation where people mind their own business and don't worry about what their neighbors are doing, how they live their lives, or concern themselves with how much money their neighbor makes. I want a nation that is a mosaic, a work of art made up of individual squares of color, not a homogeneous blank canvas where everyone is the same.
If your vision were to become a reality, I would actively try to burn it down and the authorities would have to kill me to stop me. No, I am not kidding.
1. Lest we suffer a misunderstanding, I don't think what @Mathsorcerer most objected to was the concept of a welfare state or nationalize healthcare or protectionism--I think it was the idea that the government might nationalize the press. That was the "un-American" part in his view.
2. I don't think we're at risk of having the government nationalize the media, with or without an independent oversight committee. Americans in general are too distrusting of our government to tolerate that level of state control. Even Sanders was not calling for nationalization of any key industries, and Trump would not have the support needed to take that much control of the press.
For both of those reasons, let's not jump on anyone for what they have said here.
I do not feel that America can be socialist in the Scandinavian sense. There is way too much diversity, identity politics and such for a non-statist form of collectivist action. We need a new syndicalist order, and a nationalistic one; with collaboration between groups, corporations, races, and social classes. The achieving of an all powerful, all-encompassing State through which every citizen is moblized and marches together to the beat of the drum, with direct democracy via referendum and all things done for the good and glory of the people and their State.
We need a welfare state, with nationalized healthcare. All industry and commerce vital to the functioning of the people's State to be nationalized immediately. With strict protectionism in trade, arbitration of labour disputes, and regulation of corporations for the good of every man, done of course by the State. And we need a press that is run by the State and overseen by ethics committees made up of private citizens.
This has to be the most blatantly un-American sentiment I have heard in a long, long while and represents the polar opposite of the thinking which went into the Declaration of Independence. You know not for what you are asking--even if you were an enemy of mine I wouldn't wish such a country upon you.
I want a nation of dissent. I want a nation of independent thinkers who do not rely upon their neighbors for anything. I want a nation where people mind their own business and don't worry about what their neighbors are doing, how they live their lives, or concern themselves with how much money their neighbor makes. I want a nation that is a mosaic, a work of art made up of individual squares of color, not a homogeneous blank canvas where everyone is the same.
If your vision were to become a reality, I would actively try to burn it down and the authorities would have to kill me to stop me. No, I am not kidding.
1. Lest we suffer a misunderstanding, I don't think what @Mathsorcerer most objected to was the concept of a welfare state or nationalize healthcare or protectionism--I think it was the idea that the government might nationalize the press. That was the "un-American" part in his view.
2. I don't think we're at risk of having the government nationalize the media, with or without an independent oversight committee. Americans in general are too distrusting of our government to tolerate that level of state control. Even Sanders was not calling for nationalization of any key industries, and Trump would not have the support needed to take that much control of the press.
For both of those reasons, let's not jump on anyone for what they have said here.
We don't need to nationalize the media for them to be a danger to the very democracy they have always been charged with upholding. Both liberals and conservatives view them with complete disdain.
MEAT LOAF LYRICS "Everything Louder Than Everything Else"
I know that I will never be politically correct And I don't give a damn about my lack of etiquette As far as I'm concerned the world could still be flat And if the thrill is gone, then it's time to take it back! If the thrill is gone, then it's time to take it back!
1993
I remember when I was in grade school that my social studies teachers started programming us to this phrase. It is not new and I still have the essay that I wrote back then. ( Yes, I collect everything )
I guess Meatloaf didn't take too kindly to it either.
1. Lest we suffer a misunderstanding, I don't think what @Mathsorcerer most objected to was the concept of a welfare state or nationalize healthcare or protectionism--I think it was the idea that the government might nationalize the press. That was the "un-American" part in his view.
2. I don't think we're at risk of having the government nationalize the media, with or without an independent oversight committee. Americans in general are too distrusting of our government to tolerate that level of state control. Even Sanders was not calling for nationalization of any key industries, and Trump would not have the support needed to take that much control of the press.
For both of those reasons, let's not jump on anyone for what they have said here.
Um call me a conspiracy wack job, but he has already placed the seeds in place to control the media, or at least weaken the credibility of left leaning outlets and empowering alt-right ones.
1. Lest we suffer a misunderstanding, I don't think what @Mathsorcerer most objected to was the concept of a welfare state or nationalize healthcare or protectionism--I think it was the idea that the government might nationalize the press. That was the "un-American" part in his view.
2. I don't think we're at risk of having the government nationalize the media, with or without an independent oversight committee. Americans in general are too distrusting of our government to tolerate that level of state control. Even Sanders was not calling for nationalization of any key industries, and Trump would not have the support needed to take that much control of the press.
For both of those reasons, let's not jump on anyone for what they have said here.
I don't mind clarifying and quantifying my statements; it helps to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. No, I am not objecting to welfare or nationalized healthcare or any other quasi-socialist agency--no one wants the elderly or the unemployed to be starving to death in the streets. My objection is directed specifically at the idea of an all-powerful, all-encompassing State waving a banner behind which all good citizens rally in unison in order to continue the glory of the State. If you want to enjoy such things then look up videos online, focusing your search in the years 1934 - 1939, and you will see such a State in action.
Nationalize all industry? Really? Theft by government agency, backed up by the force of guns? No, thank you. I don't trust corporations all that much--Michael Moore's best film, his first, Roger & Me, details what happens to a city when a corporation is allowed to do pretty much what it wants--but I trust them more than I do the government. Corporations want only your money; government wants your obedience. I can live with spending money because I can make more money; if I give up my freedom, though, I may not be able to get it back.
The media dislike Trump as much as he dislikes them. The Internet, for all its faults, is too big to be controlled and will thus remain the last light of potential truth if all other lights go out. Just be careful when searching for the truth on the Internet.
In the interest of diplomacy, though, I must state that my earlier comments were not directed at anyone. There are few things in life about which I become animated and it just so happens that "personal liberty" is one of those things. I want freedom for *everyone*, even people who disagree with me. In fact, if someone isn't disagreeing with me then I haven't been doing my job well enough because they aren't thinking for themselves and questioning that which I say. On another forum, I used to get into heated debates with another guy then one day I told him "I wish I could be President just so I could make you my Vice President and then you could keep me on my toes and question every decision I make". He didn't understand.
Yes it would be a shame if the USA were as successful, educated, and liberal as a happy place like Scandinavia. People would have to burn it down. sigh.
And that's the thing. You can't even mention socialism or nationalism and it provokes a "I'm going to burn everything!" reaction as if by reflex by "real americans".
The robber barons in the top 1% have won. They've got people educated and convinced that you have to go it alone, you can't trust anyone. Rules and regulations are bad, society bad, taxes bad, government bad. And that thinking works out great for them. They can cut their taxes and make the middle class pay more. They can institute capitalism without pesky regulations or safety. They can push the right to work, and longer hours, lower pay, reduced benefits, no time off, and let their CEO pay go wild because they are making record profits. Nobody questions why things like the average pay is stagnant despite prices going up etc etc etc.
Yes it would be a shame if the USA were as successful, educated, and liberal as a happy place like Scandinavia. People would have to burn it down. sigh.
And that's the thing. You can't even mention socialism or nationalism and it provokes a "I'm going to burn everything!" reaction as if by reflex by "real americans".
The robber barons in the top 1% have won. They've got people educated and convinced that you have to go it alone, you can't trust anyone. Rules and regulations are bad, society bad, taxes bad, government bad. And that thinking works out great for them. They can cut their taxes and make the middle class pay more. They can institute capitalism without pesky regulations or safety. They can push the right to work, and longer hours, lower pay, reduced benefits, no time off, and let their CEO pay go wild because they are making record profits. Nobody questions why things like the average pay is stagnant despite prices going up etc etc etc.
Socialism in Sweden did well for so long because people worked to pay taxes. Also it was Nationalistic because the indiginous people cared about the country. When you have other peoples through mass/forced immigration and those people do not or can't find work the system springs leaks and finally blows open. Happening now. Other countries are seeing this in Europe and are quickly changing their tune.
1. Lest we suffer a misunderstanding, I don't think what Mathsorcerer most objected to was the concept of a welfare state or nationalize healthcare or protectionism--I think it was the idea that the government might nationalize the press. That was the "un-American" part in his view.
2. I don't think we're at risk of having the government nationalize the media, with or without an independent oversight committee. Americans in general are too distrusting of our government to tolerate that level of state control. Even Sanders was not calling for nationalization of any key industries, and Trump would not have the support needed to take that much control of the press.
For both of those reasons, let's not jump on anyone for what they have said here.
I don't mind clarifying and quantifying my statements; it helps to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. No, I am not objecting to welfare or nationalized healthcare or any other quasi-socialist agency--no one wants the elderly or the unemployed to be starving to death in the streets. My objection is directed specifically at the idea of an all-powerful, all-encompassing State waving a banner behind which all good citizens rally in unison in order to continue the glory of the State. If you want to enjoy such things then look up videos online, focusing your search in the years 1934 - 1939, and you will see such a State in action.
Nationalize all industry? Really? Theft by government agency, backed up by the force of guns? No, thank you. I don't trust corporations all that much--Michael Moore's best film, his first, Roger & Me, details what happens to a city when a corporation is allowed to do pretty much what it wants--but I trust them more than I do the government. Corporations want only your money; government wants your obedience. I can live with spending money because I can make more money; if I give up my freedom, though, I may not be able to get it back.
The media dislike Trump as much as he dislikes them. The Internet, for all its faults, is too big to be controlled and will thus remain the last light of potential truth if all other lights go out. Just be careful when searching for the truth on the Internet.
In the interest of diplomacy, though, I must state that my earlier comments were not directed at anyone. There are few things in life about which I become animated and it just so happens that "personal liberty" is one of those things. I want freedom for *everyone*, even people who disagree with me. In fact, if someone isn't disagreeing with me then I haven't been doing my job well enough because they aren't thinking for themselves and questioning that which I say. On another forum, I used to get into heated debates with another guy then one day I told him "I wish I could be President just so I could make you my Vice President and then you could keep me on my toes and question every decision I make". He didn't understand.
I wrote a giant post on why a dictatorship doesn't have to be 1984 nor the Nazi party but I don't feel like posting it... TL;DR for the wall of text I was going to post: if you give the good guys absolute power, aren't they going to do as much good as they can? You can be a good dictator for your people, there's no need to have Orwellian surveillance nor to influence fanaticism. The restriction of freedom is also worthless (anyway, freedom is restricted by the law already. If you want to be part of the human society, you have to accept their social agreement (if there's no social agreement you get The Lord of the Flies... Or at least that's what I was told, since I haven't finished reading that book) or, well, dunno what happens if you don't accept it, but since nobody questions the Constitution I see no reason to think what would happen if somebody didn't agree with it.
Yes it would be a shame if the USA were as successful, educated, and liberal as a happy place like Scandinavia. People would have to burn it down. sigh.
And that's the thing. You can't even mention socialism or nationalism and it provokes a "I'm going to burn everything!" reaction as if by reflex by "real americans".
The robber barons in the top 1% have won. They've got people educated and convinced that you have to go it alone, you can't trust anyone. Rules and regulations are bad, society bad, taxes bad, government bad. And that thinking works out great for them. They can cut their taxes and make the middle class pay more. They can institute capitalism without pesky regulations or safety. They can push the right to work, and longer hours, lower pay, reduced benefits, no time off, and let their CEO pay go wild because they are making record profits. Nobody questions why things like the average pay is stagnant despite prices going up etc etc etc.
You completely misunderstood everything I said, which is a shame. I don't use the phrase "real American" because there is no such thing as "a real American"; using the phrase "real Americans think x" is a logical fallacy, except the technical name for it is "no true Scotsman".
That which I would burn is a society where the individual is subjugated to, and less important than, the nation as a whole. I distrust groupthink, valuing the idea of walking one's own path as opposed to the path which would make the State better.
You shouldn't trust anyone, at least not past a certain point. If you think your neighbor has your best interest at heart then either you are naive or you haven't been paying attention to your neighbor very closely. Your neighbor will ultimately place their own interests above your own; this is not an indication of any sort of moral failure but is simply how our brains are wired for survival.
Unfortunately, your views on taxes also indicate that you don't understand how taxation actually works. You think the government needs your money so it can spend on the programs it has earmarked for spending? No, they don't. The government prints whatever money it needs to pay for its programs but since this leads to inflation (overproduction devalues the currency) the role of taxation is to restrict the money supply to keep inflation in check.
I already said I don't trust corporations all that much. Executive pay really is out of control--if you want your company to have increased morale and probably increased productivity then take some c-level's $1 million bonus and give a $2,500 bonus to 400 rank-and-file employees. They are the ones who actually do the work that makes all the money the corporation is earning, anyway.
I don't expect you to change your mind, of course. There are plenty of articles describing how your emotional state and the wiring in your brain make it difficult for most people to change their minds, especially on political beliefs. You will continue to think that you are correct, even in the face of contradictory evidence pointing to the conclusion that people do not want to subjugate themselves to some all-powerful State, regardless of the form that State may take.
You should never give anyone absolute or uncontrolled power, not even me, despite my wanting what is best for everyone. The "good guys" stop being "good guys" once they are able to tell everyone else what to do.
I question the Constitution. There were things the Framers did correctly but there were things they did incorrectly. Sadly, I am not in a position to correct the document so the things I think need to be changed are matters of opinion only.
Yes it would be a shame if the USA were as successful, educated, and liberal as a happy place like Scandinavia. People would have to burn it down. sigh.
And that's the thing. You can't even mention socialism or nationalism and it provokes a "I'm going to burn everything!" reaction as if by reflex by "real americans".
The robber barons in the top 1% have won. They've got people educated and convinced that you have to go it alone, you can't trust anyone. Rules and regulations are bad, society bad, taxes bad, government bad. And that thinking works out great for them. They can cut their taxes and make the middle class pay more. They can institute capitalism without pesky regulations or safety. They can push the right to work, and longer hours, lower pay, reduced benefits, no time off, and let their CEO pay go wild because they are making record profits. Nobody questions why things like the average pay is stagnant despite prices going up etc etc etc.
You completely misunderstood everything I said, which is a shame. I don't use the phrase "real American" because there is no such thing as "a real American"; using the phrase "real Americans think x" is a logical fallacy, except the technical name for it is "no true Scotsman".
That which I would burn is a society where the individual is subjugated to, and less important than, the nation as a whole. I distrust groupthink, valuing the idea of walking one's own path as opposed to the path which would make the State better.
You shouldn't trust anyone, at least not past a certain point. If you think your neighbor has your best interest at heart then either you are naive or you haven't been paying attention to your neighbor very closely. Your neighbor will ultimately place their own interests above your own; this is not an indication of any sort of moral failure but is simply how our brains are wired for survival.
Unfortunately, your views on taxes also indicate that you don't understand how taxation actually works. You think the government needs your money so it can spend on the programs it has earmarked for spending? No, they don't. The government prints whatever money it needs to pay for its programs but since this leads to inflation (overproduction devalues the currency) the role of taxation is to restrict the money supply to keep inflation in check.
I already said I don't trust corporations all that much. Executive pay really is out of control--if you want your company to have increased morale and probably increased productivity then take some c-level's $1 million bonus and give a $2,500 bonus to 400 rank-and-file employees. They are the ones who actually do the work that makes all the money the corporation is earning, anyway.
I don't expect you to change your mind, of course. There are plenty of articles describing how your emotional state and the wiring in your brain make it difficult for most people to change their minds, especially on political beliefs. You will continue to think that you are correct, even in the face of contradictory evidence pointing to the conclusion that people do not want to subjugate themselves to some all-powerful State, regardless of the form that State may take.
You should never give anyone absolute or uncontrolled power, not even me, despite my wanting what is best for everyone. The "good guys" stop being "good guys" once they are able to tell everyone else what to do.
I question the Constitution. There were things the Framers did correctly but there were things they did incorrectly. Sadly, I am not in a position to correct the document so the things I think need to be changed are matters of opinion only.
yeah you didn't write anything there that I'm dead against. Only thing I'd kind of minorly disagree with is that I don't trust my neighbor with my life but I think it's worthwhile endeavor to work together.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." -A. Einstein
Which really just proves that Einstein understood a lot more about Physics than he did Biology.
Nationalism is simply a large scale manifestation of tribalism, which is hard coded into the brain of homo sapiens in the same way that it is hardcoded into it's near relative pan troglodytes.
You can't remove it, and under some circumstances it is an essential survival tool. Trying to deny it's existence or eliminate it is a fool's task. The only way forward is accept that it exists and channel it in constructive directions.
Unfortunately if you give even good people too much power, corruption is sure to follow...
I don't know, I feel like ruining your honour and people's lives for what? Money stolen from the government, the people that trust in you? What's that for? You have the most power in the whole country, what else do you need? Fancy clothes? An expensive car to go nowhere? Corruption gets the weak minded and the foolish. It depicts somebody who lacks the commitment to be in such place, that bases their actions on their emotions instead of rational thought and lacks respect for the trust of their own people.
Well, the thing is, what is good to someone may not be good to someone else. Just sayin'.
It's not good for "someone", it's for the good of everyone. Until people understand this there's no way such a thing would be possible. Living a society is a commitment.
Who gets to determine what is good for everyone, though? How do we know--how do *they* know--that what they want is actually good for everyone? How far can something that is good for everyone be pushed before it becomes no longer good?
Consider the Interstate Highway system which was developed here during the 1950s, pattering itself after similar road systems in Europe. Well-built roads connecting major cities paid for by funding via taxpayers so that the roads belong to us all is a good thing, yes? Those roads were not good for many small towns which were bypassed, killing their traffic which eventually killed the towns--there are plenty of places where you can see the remnants of what used to be thriving small towns with the crumbling buildings abandoned on the side of the road.
I think that when a person is placed in control (or takes it) it's human nature to begin to believe that you're 'better' than the people you serve (rule). So yes, fancy clothes, expensive cars, personal servants (secretaries, chauffeurs, bodyguards, sycophants), vacations. This is all the better when you're paying for it with someone else's money. Call me a cynic I guess...
Who gets to determine what is good for everyone, though? How do we know--how do *they* know--that what they want is actually good for everyone? How far can something that is good for everyone be pushed before it becomes no longer good?
I don't think it should be determined, just thought accordingly to the situation. Who does this? The person you have in charge of the whole country? How? Making studies of what should be the best option.
Consider the Interstate Highway system which was developed here during the 1950s, pattering itself after similar road systems in Europe. Well-built roads connecting major cities paid for by funding via taxpayers so that the roads belong to us all is a good thing, yes? Those roads were not good for many small towns which were bypassed, killing their traffic which eventually killed the towns--there are plenty of places where you can see the remnants of what used to be thriving small towns with the crumbling buildings abandoned on the side of the road.
Well, there will always be situations like this. What I'd do would be seek to rearrange those people somewhere else, provide them jobs and maybe even financial support (I know it's not the best solution, but I think it's fitting for the age in which this happened).
Which really just proves that Einstein understood a lot more about Physics than he did Biology.
Nationalism is simply a large scale manifestation of tribalism, which is hard coded into the brain of homo sapiens in the same way that it is hardcoded into it's near relative pan troglodytes.
You can't remove it, and under some circumstances it is an essential survival tool. Trying to deny it's existence or eliminate it is a fool's task. The only way forward is accept that it exists and channel it in constructive directions.
That's wrong on several levels.
First, nationalism as we understand it didn't exist until relatively recently in history. Nation-states are not a concept of great antiquity. That is part of why Rome and China so effectively were able to assimilate and destroy the cultures they expanded to cover.
Second, it's wrong because lots of people don't have this "hardcoded essential survival tool". I don't, for instance. The patch of dirt I was born on is not special-er or better than the patch of dirt that was a ferry ride away.
It's true that various forms of tribalism are common in humanity, but so what? Humans are "hardcoded" not to understand large numbers or statistical probabilities, either, and yet we've reached the Moon.
Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, which is a.) shocking and b.) does wonders for his legacy among multiple groups. It's also a huge middle finger to conservatives and even security-state Dems. Wow.
First, nationalism as we understand it didn't exist until relatively recently in history
This is sooooo wrong on every level.
Not as wrong as you think. Nationalism didn't rise until the middle class started to gain power. The serfs didn't care so much which Lord was pissing on them!
First, nationalism as we understand it didn't exist until relatively recently in history
This is sooooo wrong on every level.
Not as wrong as you think. Nationalism didn't rise until the middle class started to gain power. The serfs didn't care so much which Lord was pissing on them!
I am not going to do anyone's research or work for them. I don't mean check wikipedia either. Step away from your PC's and go out into the real world. Get some air, volunteer your time, take a trip outside your zip code. The world is bigger than you think and knowledge always comes from those outside your circles.
Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, which is a.) shocking and b.) does wonders for his legacy among multiple groups. It's also a huge middle finger to conservatives and even security-state Dems. Wow.
For those who do not remember, Ms. Manning's document dump while working as an Army intelligence officer turned into what we now know as WikiLeaks. Most of the intel was pretty harmless but a lot of it also detailed abuses being committed by Iraqi military officials under the mostly-uncaring eye of American military advisors.
Comments
I want a nation of dissent. I want a nation of independent thinkers who do not rely upon their neighbors for anything. I want a nation where people mind their own business and don't worry about what their neighbors are doing, how they live their lives, or concern themselves with how much money their neighbor makes. I want a nation that is a mosaic, a work of art made up of individual squares of color, not a homogeneous blank canvas where everyone is the same.
If your vision were to become a reality, I would actively try to burn it down and the authorities would have to kill me to stop me. No, I am not kidding.
1. Lest we suffer a misunderstanding, I don't think what @Mathsorcerer most objected to was the concept of a welfare state or nationalize healthcare or protectionism--I think it was the idea that the government might nationalize the press. That was the "un-American" part in his view.
2. I don't think we're at risk of having the government nationalize the media, with or without an independent oversight committee. Americans in general are too distrusting of our government to tolerate that level of state control. Even Sanders was not calling for nationalization of any key industries, and Trump would not have the support needed to take that much control of the press.
For both of those reasons, let's not jump on anyone for what they have said here.
You frigging nailed it!!!
"Everything Louder Than Everything Else"
I know that I will never be politically correct
And I don't give a damn about my lack of etiquette
As far as I'm concerned the world could still be flat
And if the thrill is gone, then it's time to take it back!
If the thrill is gone, then it's time to take it back!
1993
I remember when I was in grade school that my social studies teachers started programming us to this phrase. It is not new and I still have the essay that I wrote back then. ( Yes, I collect everything )
I guess Meatloaf didn't take too kindly to it either.
Nationalize all industry? Really? Theft by government agency, backed up by the force of guns? No, thank you. I don't trust corporations all that much--Michael Moore's best film, his first, Roger & Me, details what happens to a city when a corporation is allowed to do pretty much what it wants--but I trust them more than I do the government. Corporations want only your money; government wants your obedience. I can live with spending money because I can make more money; if I give up my freedom, though, I may not be able to get it back.
The media dislike Trump as much as he dislikes them. The Internet, for all its faults, is too big to be controlled and will thus remain the last light of potential truth if all other lights go out. Just be careful when searching for the truth on the Internet.
In the interest of diplomacy, though, I must state that my earlier comments were not directed at anyone. There are few things in life about which I become animated and it just so happens that "personal liberty" is one of those things. I want freedom for *everyone*, even people who disagree with me. In fact, if someone isn't disagreeing with me then I haven't been doing my job well enough because they aren't thinking for themselves and questioning that which I say. On another forum, I used to get into heated debates with another guy then one day I told him "I wish I could be President just so I could make you my Vice President and then you could keep me on my toes and question every decision I make". He didn't understand.
And that's the thing. You can't even mention socialism or nationalism and it provokes a "I'm going to burn everything!" reaction as if by reflex by "real americans".
The robber barons in the top 1% have won. They've got people educated and convinced that you have to go it alone, you can't trust anyone. Rules and regulations are bad, society bad, taxes bad, government bad. And that thinking works out great for them. They can cut their taxes and make the middle class pay more. They can institute capitalism without pesky regulations or safety. They can push the right to work, and longer hours, lower pay, reduced benefits, no time off, and let their CEO pay go wild because they are making record profits. Nobody questions why things like the average pay is stagnant despite prices going up etc etc etc.
That which I would burn is a society where the individual is subjugated to, and less important than, the nation as a whole. I distrust groupthink, valuing the idea of walking one's own path as opposed to the path which would make the State better.
You shouldn't trust anyone, at least not past a certain point. If you think your neighbor has your best interest at heart then either you are naive or you haven't been paying attention to your neighbor very closely. Your neighbor will ultimately place their own interests above your own; this is not an indication of any sort of moral failure but is simply how our brains are wired for survival.
Unfortunately, your views on taxes also indicate that you don't understand how taxation actually works. You think the government needs your money so it can spend on the programs it has earmarked for spending? No, they don't. The government prints whatever money it needs to pay for its programs but since this leads to inflation (overproduction devalues the currency) the role of taxation is to restrict the money supply to keep inflation in check.
I already said I don't trust corporations all that much. Executive pay really is out of control--if you want your company to have increased morale and probably increased productivity then take some c-level's $1 million bonus and give a $2,500 bonus to 400 rank-and-file employees. They are the ones who actually do the work that makes all the money the corporation is earning, anyway.
I don't expect you to change your mind, of course. There are plenty of articles describing how your emotional state and the wiring in your brain make it difficult for most people to change their minds, especially on political beliefs. You will continue to think that you are correct, even in the face of contradictory evidence pointing to the conclusion that people do not want to subjugate themselves to some all-powerful State, regardless of the form that State may take.
You should never give anyone absolute or uncontrolled power, not even me, despite my wanting what is best for everyone. The "good guys" stop being "good guys" once they are able to tell everyone else what to do.
I question the Constitution. There were things the Framers did correctly but there were things they did incorrectly. Sadly, I am not in a position to correct the document so the things I think need to be changed are matters of opinion only.
Nationalism is simply a large scale manifestation of tribalism, which is hard coded into the brain of homo sapiens in the same way that it is hardcoded into it's near relative pan troglodytes.
You can't remove it, and under some circumstances it is an essential survival tool. Trying to deny it's existence or eliminate it is a fool's task. The only way forward is accept that it exists and channel it in constructive directions.
...until I make them.
My apologies @smeagolheart -- I painted with too broad a brush and accidentally dripped color on your shoes.
Consider the Interstate Highway system which was developed here during the 1950s, pattering itself after similar road systems in Europe. Well-built roads connecting major cities paid for by funding via taxpayers so that the roads belong to us all is a good thing, yes? Those roads were not good for many small towns which were bypassed, killing their traffic which eventually killed the towns--there are plenty of places where you can see the remnants of what used to be thriving small towns with the crumbling buildings abandoned on the side of the road.
First, nationalism as we understand it didn't exist until relatively recently in history. Nation-states are not a concept of great antiquity. That is part of why Rome and China so effectively were able to assimilate and destroy the cultures they expanded to cover.
Second, it's wrong because lots of people don't have this "hardcoded essential survival tool". I don't, for instance. The patch of dirt I was born on is not special-er or better than the patch of dirt that was a ferry ride away.
It's true that various forms of tribalism are common in humanity, but so what? Humans are "hardcoded" not to understand large numbers or statistical probabilities, either, and yet we've reached the Moon.
First, nationalism as we understand it didn't exist until relatively recently in history
This is sooooo wrong on every level.