Thanks, I was in need of some friendly sarcasm. I actually love America. Americans….well that is a different story.

Thanks for your response. We surely have very different approaches, be I appreciate our interactions.

The consequences of the loss of that capacity why any functioning government morally obligates allegiance under any ordinary circumstances. Both D&C 134 and the Declaration of Independence endorse this point while implicitly or explicitly outlining the circumstances where other considerations are or may be overriding factors.

That is why I think you sound Hobbesian. If you think this is Lockean, it is only because Locke, to a large degree, is very Hobbesian in his methodology. Hobbes’ argument fits an England devasted by Civil War. Locke’s argument fits England in the 1690s. Neither argument much survives Rousseau’s critique. Even Jefferson moved beyond Lockean arguments during his lifetime. Not sure why Americans have not.

I do not think that the state is a source of moral obligation. I address this above in my rejection of political cosmopolitanism.

I am trying to make an argument for the age of globalization. You are clinging to a Westphalian world which no longer exists.

It should not come as a surprise that sovereign nation states in a conflictual world system would hobble any organization that might aspire to assume any roles currently reserved for them.

it is not likely that a world government will form by peaceful means any time in the next several centuries.

Is this a fair standard? It’s not as if any current governments were formed by peaceful means any time in the last several centuries.

The sine qua non of government is to maintain safety and security by monopolizing the use of force within its domain. There is no such world government, and no form of cosmopolitanism can morally obligate the type of allegiance any reasonable national government obligates until there is, simply because cosmpolitanism in the abstract cannot and does not substitute for the vital functions of a sovereign government.

I think the ideal that we should love, be concerned for and care about those in other countries is commendable. However, we have no sovereign authority to push them around, and it is not likely that a world government will form by peaceful means any time in the next several centuries. As a consequence, loyalty to those in the world at large can only be in addition to allegiance and support for one’s own country.

There is no world government to be loyal to, and the current organization that might aspire to become one is notoriously disfunctional, undemocratic, and unrepresentative. It cannot come remotely close to performing those functions that morally obligate a citizen’s allegiance. It is much further from being a credible representative of those principles that inspire devotion and love.

That is the main reason why I find the ideal of cosmopolitanism as an alternative to patriotism sadly lacking.

I think John Locke’s model, whereby we owe allegiane to the state because it protects and sustains our right is more compelling, though in the end the Lockean approach is not all that different for that of Hobbes (at least it is not sufficiently different for me).

I think that the basic protect of life, limb, and property might give the state and minimal level of legitimacy, but it does not give moral cause for patriotic allegiance or love. This requires some form of justice. However, a sense of justice which lead us to demand such justice for the nation-state, will likely also lead us to some form of moral cosmopolitanism.

Anyways, I am not arguing that we should not have some sort of allegiance to our “little platoons” or even our nation-staite, but that our first moral obligation is to other human-beings, no matter who they are and no matter their political-geographical location.

Thanks for you comment Mark.