ElM, it's a delight to see you express an opinion which few do, recognizing that "national interest" normally represents the self-dealing personal benefit of those who happen to be the rulers at the time.
It has always amazed me that people are so easily subsumed into the tribalist Stockholm Syndrome based belief in patriotism.
In totalitarian countries like China, it's easier to maintain the facade that it's all for one and one for all, all hail the collective national interest. But even in democracies, there is a strong impetus to believe in the "national interest", even when push comes to shove and the "national interest" has those in charge press-ganging young guys into uniform to go and save Vietnam, or go and repossess Taiwan, or create a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, or take over Europe and no doubt everything else if possible with the Wehrmacht.
There is collectively owned property which needs defending, such as roads, hospitals, airports and your wacky idea of simply handing ownership to anyone who shows up at the border is self-destructive, so your theory is only half-baked. But you are right in that normally that collectively owned property is used to benefit those who have managed to get control of it for their own purposes, such as the immigration boss in NZ who found it expedient to hand over immigration rights to members of her extended family = free $2 million of assets to each one who managed to get in.
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Jolly good show old chap, to get it half right.
Mqurice |
