
The Most Patriotic Thing You Can Do - bjonathan
http://blogmaverick.com/2011/09/19/the-most-patriotic-thing-you-can-do-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogmaverick/tyiP+(blog+maverick)
======
r00fus
2nd most patriotic thing you can do - fight corruption by supporting increase
of oversight and transparency in government.

Corruption (both Dems and Reps are guilty of this) is the disease will kill
capitalism as it clogs the arteries of the economy.

I also love Cuban's logic - be happy you have a large tax bill to pay for that
is _a good problem to have_.

------
gavanwoolery
IMHO: "Patriotism" != handing money to your government. "Patriotism" == doing
what is best for your country (i.e. the people).

Believe it or not, the government does not alway's have the country's best
interests in mind. The example I always use is the Wall Street bailouts. Tax-
payer dollars were used (mostly against tax-payer will) to bail out reckless
banks and provide golden parachutes for undeserving CEOs. Sometimes the
government will even hurt the country when it is trying to do the right thing
- it was one of the major catalysts in the current recession, because it
backed entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their "toxic" mortgages.

If you want to do something good with your excess money, the government
probably is not the best charity to donate to. A simple rule of thumb: the
more hands that money passes through, the less money comes out the other end.
If you want to be patriotic, give your excess money DIRECTLY to those who need
it most.

~~~
muzz
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Read more: [http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-
sector-l...](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-
not-fannie.html#ixzz1YSrOwG00)
[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-
sector-l...](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-
not-fannie.html)

~~~
jessedhillon
Thank you! It's ironic that on a site like HN, so much of the commentary about
home lending is based on rhetoric and dogma instead of fact. I wonder if GP
even knows what Fannie or Freddie do.

~~~
gavanwoolery
Read my comment above.

Then check your facts, and the "facts" others post before preemptively
determining what you think is based on rhetoric and dogma.

------
coenhyde
There are a few assumptions in blog post but one in particular that I really
do not like. And that is that 'making money' automatically equates to
improvement of society.

For most businesses this is the case. If you manufacture something or provide
a service then you are adding to the overall wealth of the nation. Making a
lot of money from something that does not provide a valuable service to
society actually detracts from the wealth of the nation because you are
extracting resources (people, natural resources, time, etc) that could be
assigned to more productive uses.

Remember is money is not wealth.

------
gentle
If you're rich and you can't recognize your debt to the society that enabled
you to become rich, then you're a greedy, horrible person. Pay your taxes, for
gosh sakes.

~~~
civilian
Strongly disagree. My classmates picked on me, my teachers didn't challenge
me. The state didn't pay for my education. I'm successful because I've applied
myself while my peers were screwing off.

Just because you need consumers to become wealthy doesn't mean that you're
exploiting them... wealth creation is NOT a zero-sum game. Becoming wealthy is
the reward you get for making consumer's lives better.

Edit// For clarification, I'm fine with paying taxes. But I don't owe a debt
to society just because of my success. I'm an equal citizen with everyone
else, and we all benefit from the stability that government provides. I would
also say that if the concept of "societal debt" is legitimate, then the poor
have accrued much more debt anyway.

(I'm fine with the downvotes. My highest net-point posts usually start with
some downvotes.)

~~~
bennesvig
Agree completely. The only honest way to make a living in a capitalistic
society is to provide a service or product that someone wants. You can only
make money by providing something people find valuable.

~~~
gjm11
Yes, it's (approximately) true that the only way to make money is by providing
something that people find valuable.

It doesn't follow, however, that if you make money then you must be providing
something that is valuable _overall_.

Hypothetical example: I find a completely undetectable way to steal money from
poor people and transfer it to rich people, except that 25% of it vanishes on
the way. I offer my services to someone rich and unscrupulous. Although poor
people don't have much money, there are a lot of them, and I am able to get my
client $10M/year. She pays me $1M/year. (For some reason my method is only
capable of enriching people who are already rich, which is why I don't just
take the $10M myself directly.)

In this situation, I have provided something that someone finds valuable. It
is unlikely, however, that I have made the world a better place (because of
the diminishing marginal utility of money, etc., etc.), my actions would
generally be considered unethical, and I wouldn't want to argue that I
_deserve_ all the money I'm getting that way.

(Some people would say that what I just described is the standard operating
procedure of the financial industry. That may or may not have some truth to
it, but all that matters for the point I'm making is that that general _kind_
of thing can happen -- some jobs can be negative-sum but provide some people
with enough benefit to make them well paid.)

~~~
jwallaceparker
You just described an act of theft. That wouldn't be legal in a free,
capitalistic society.

------
Apocryphon
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

~~~
anamax
That doesn't imply that every possible taxation system is an acceptable price.

More to the point, a large fraction of the taxes that we pay go to things that
have nothing to do with a civilized society.

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Buck
vs Bell.

------
Vadoff
I believe Captain America does an excellent job on explaining what it means to
be a true patriot: <http://imgur.com/a/TEvWk>

------
slowpoke
Maybe we could stop asserting that patriotism is in any way, shape or form a
positive attribute. It's not.

~~~
vijayr
Totally agree. It seems that patriotism applies only to "normal" people, not
to those huge businesses that operate internationally, across borders. Also,
in an age when no country could exist in isolation, what sense does it make to
think of just "my country, my society"?

------
pavel_lishin
It seems that paying taxes is the most patriotic thing you can do; being rich
just allows you to pay more of them, as well as benefiting the economy in
other ways.

------
gerggerg
It seems rather foolish to think that there can be a _most_ patriotic thing
you can do. Plus the grey area and loop holes in the tax code generally tend
to favor the rich. Does the author mean that the most patriotic thing you can
do is pay taxes without trying to minimize the amount of tax you pay? And if
so whats the threshold of manipulative tax paying.

It's also very naive to think that your own bottom line and tax bill are in
any way a measure of your patriotism. Is shipping jobs overseas to increase
profit more patriotic than maintaining a more modest business while providing
jobs in your country?

Associating patriotism with profit is just a psychological tool for justifying
your own desire to have more things than everyone else.

The _most_ patriotic thing you can do is love your country.

~~~
viraptor
> The most patriotic thing you can do is love your country.

What does that actually achieve or change for anyone in a broader sense?
Patriotism is by definition a kind of love for your country. Now what you do
as a result is what actually matters.

Alternatively, can you love your country without striving to make it better in
some way? Is an own love for the country without any action a valid concept?

~~~
gerggerg
That's exactly what I'm trying to convey. The concept of patriotism is just as
abstract as the concept of love.

People who talk about it otherwise just have something to sell.

------
littlegiantcap
I share his general sentiment. In a broader sense that's why I love the
capitalistic system, or at least the way it's evolved within the US. People
don't exist in a vacuum. Bettering your own situation with goals ranging from
altruism to full on greed still pulls people up with you, and improves the
lives of everyone else in society. Granted it's not a perfect system, and
there's things we could do to make it better, but still at it's core I believe
there is the best their is.

------
jroseattle
I'm sure Mark believes this to be true, but I find his comments to be self-
serving. He's basically saying that what he's accomplished in his life is
patriotic, and that should be your goal too! If we all follow his advice, by
nature he will be "patriotic".

I don't necessarily disagree with the advice, but his sentiment toward it
feeds his own feelings more than anything else.

------
sportsTAKES
Paying taxes is patriotic in one sense.

But not feeding the monster is also patriotic.

Fundamentally, if I knew tax dollars were were being spent efficiently, I
wouldn't have a problem paying 'higher' taxes.

Corruption, inefficiency make it impossible to support tax increases.

~~~
Tsagadai
So Greece should become the world's first anarchist state? Paying taxes there
is only supporting corruption, bureaucracy (including their debt holders) and
inefficiency. Part of their problem is that no one was paying taxes to start
with. Not paying taxes is a form of corruption.

What you are talking about is a problem of government accountability. What you
are suggesting is fighting fire with fire.

------
jlarocco
I don't see the connection between patriotism and taxes. I could see an angle
where explicitly dodging taxes could be unpatriotic. But patriotism isn't
something you buy. It just doesn't work like that.

------
0003
The most patriotic thing a person can do is to continuously know the value of
them self and of others and to use that knowledge to do good.

------
chopsueyar
Buy a failing basketball team.

------
Hisoka
He's making a few assumptions:

1) Government knows how to spend our money wisely on things that improve the
quality of our lives

2) Getting rich equates to improving the quality of lives of society, as a
whole. I know several industries where this isn't the case.. (gambling,
cigarettes, fast food)

~~~
redfiche
He says no such thing. He says we live in an imperfect world where the
government has a role to play in getting us out of this recession. As to your
second point, that's based on your opinion of what constitutes making society
better.

~~~
Hisoka
I didnt say he said those things explicitly. But by saying it's patriotic,
he's assuming those things.

Yes, it's based on my opinion. Yes, I'm generalizing, and I bet the majority
of human beings on this earth would agree there are industries that make
people rich and are harmful to the general public. In fact, I'd argue there's
a TON of them. Humans love to self destruct (ie. get fat, kill themselves, get
addicted, overspend, etc)

~~~
SigmundA
Probably why we need government eh? Have you ever set your clock ahead 10
minutes to help keep you from being late? Why, you could just be responsible
instead?

This is the premise of a democratic government, when you realize that you will
not always do the best thing for yourself or your neighbors, but you still
know what the best thing is and have a government that enforces it, knowing it
could come for you if you break the contract.

Obviously it is not a perfect system and we must be vigilant to improve it
constantly, but anarchy is not a viable option.

In many cases government does spend more wisely than any single individual,
but that may not be the cheapest approach, there is a difference. Look up the
"Price of anarchy".

~~~
jwallaceparker
Can you give some examples of the "many cases" in which a government spends
more wisely than an individual?

~~~
jessedhillon
Rather than me hiring security for my house at a rate of maybe one hour a day
-- the only amount of private security I could afford -- the government pools
the money of my entire community, hires many security guards, equips them, and
lets them drive around my neighborhood.

Then, instead of my spending an hour or two educating all the kids in the
neighborhood, in the hope that the next generation of people aren't morons,
they take some money from all property owners and use it to build schools.
Those schools to ensure that a very wide swath of the population, even the
poor and stupid, meet minimum education standards. That way, at the very least
they can go and do the service jobs that I don't want to do, and so many of
them meet that minimum education level that they can be hired for a low wage,
thus keeping the price I pay low.

~~~
jwallaceparker
The government spends wastefully in defense, education and every other service
it seeks to provide.

I agree in principle that it's generally beneficial for individuals to pool
resources in order to address common needs. But this happens on its own in a
marketplace. It's called the division of labor.

~~~
jessedhillon
Wastefully compared to what? Do you know of any other organization that
provides essential social services to hundreds of millions of people?

Do you have actual facts to supply here? Can you provide an a legitimate
comparison for us, or are we supposed to simply accept your free market
mantra?

The existence of waste and inefficient behaviors does not mean that the system
is waste _ful_.

~~~
jwallaceparker
> Wastefully compared to what?

A competitive marketplace.

> Do you know of any other organization that provides essential social
> services to hundreds of millions of people?

I would categorize food, clothing, furniture, and housing as essential needs.
They're all provided for by competitive markets.

There's nothing unique about health care, education, fire, power, water and
roads that these couldn't be provided by competitive markets, too.

> Do you have actual facts to supply here?

I think the price tag on the Middle East war(s) is over 1 trillion dollars.
This expenditure is done under the umbrella of "defense."

If your local security company told you they think it will make you safer if
they expand their operations to the Middle East to seek out shady characters,
and oh by the way, we need to charge you 10 times as much to pay for these new
operations, you'd take your business elsewhere.

The inherent danger in government programs is that there is no effective check
on expenditures save the restraint of the government itself.

There is certainly waste in a free market, but in a free market the waste is
isolated to individual firms. If they lose money, they go out of business.

~~~
jessedhillon
I don't think your war analogy works.

There is a good case that the cost of the war(s) is so high _because_ the
administration which prosecuted them relied so heavily on private companies
for services. Donald Rumsfeld came into the DoD with an ideological belief
that private companies could do the job more efficiently, and, based on that
belief, he turned the DoD into an ATM for the largest defense and security
contractors.

And waste in free markets definitely is not isolated to one firm. Ask a bank.

~~~
jwallaceparker
The cost of war is always high and has always involved private industry. This
didn't start with Rumsfeld.

The government has never made its own guns, bombs, planes, tanks or any other
tool of the trade.

> And waste in free markets definitely is not isolated to one firm. Ask a
> bank.

The banks are not a free market! They were all bailed out by government. In a
free market they'd all be gone.

When I say "one firm" I mean "one at a time." Instead of systemic waste like
in a government-run industry.

------
zackattack
nothing cuban writes in public is going to be honest, it's fundamentally self
serving and it's good PR.

------
rubashov
Alternate patriotic strategy: learn to live comfortably on an untaxably low
income, or an unreported cash income. Draw the maximum benefits you can. Keep
yourself healthy and don't buy health insurance. Help to accelerate the
inevitable collapse of a corrupt, immoral, and unsustainable system.

------
jack_alexander
Patriotism is a sham put in place by a social experiment of the introduction
of organized sports. It created team-spirit and it was translated to other
levels to equate patriotism. In the original days wars were small enough and
there were enough real patriots to fight it. But since the country was based
on violence and theft I have no faith in it anymore.

War is lie and Capitalism is parasitism.

------
smokeyj
Cuban: Pay your taxes, be a patriot!

In a country founded by patriots protesting taxes, I find his rhetoric tiring.
Patriotism doesn't create jobs, capitalism does.

Taxes, legal fees and regulation can all kill a start up. The government has a
money printing machine, it's not like a fledgling startups is the only source
of revenue to finance endless war. If we want to create jobs, it should be
free to start a company, sell shares, and start doing business.

~~~
leviathant
The way I remember it, the founding fathers weren't protesting the taxes, so
much as the lack of representation. Ben Franklin famously wrote that "In this
world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." This country
wasn't founded on the notion that we should be tax free. The Boston Tea Party
basically came about because The East India Tea company made bad business
decisions, and wanted a tax break in England to alleviate warehousing issues.

Actually, it's all quite complicated, but to say that this was a country
founded by patriots protesting taxes and then to complain of tiresome rhetoric
is to illustrate how little you understand both American history and rhetoric.

~~~
astine
_The way I remember it, the founding fathers weren't protesting the taxes, so
much as the lack of representation._

That's arguably wrong as well. A large number of American colonists
(particularly in Boston; esp John Hancock) made a living as smugglers
bypassing English tax laws and circumventing the EITC's trade monopoly on tea.
The administrative changes that parliament made in that time included not only
new taxes but better enforcement of laws which were already on the books and
this nearly drove many prominent Americans out of business.

