That's the title and topic of this month's Cato Unbound .

For those not familiar, see About Cato Unbound . It's basically a lead essay on a provocative topic followed by two reaction essays which is then followed by further discussion.

The lead essay for this month's topic is George Kateb, author of Patriotism and Other Mistakes ....so he's had some experience writing on this idea. Needless to say, I think we see the direction that the lead essay takes us in.

Reaction essays are by Walter Berns , a professor at Princeton University and a resident scholar at the AEI, and Chandran Kukathas , of the London School of Economics and the Independent Institute. He also contributes to Reason Magazine.

Kateb immediately questions the rationale behind "Love of Country" whereby we seem to personify it and give it metaphorically parental attributes.

Obviously a country is not a person. There is a metaphor involved. If we notice the metaphor, we see that what we are doing when we liken a country to a parent is performing an act of the imagination. More commonly, the metaphor is not understood as a metaphor. Rather, many people just accept the usage as if it were natural and can and should go without examination. They manage to do two contradictory things simultaneously: they know that of course a country is not a person, yet they act with energy on the belief that it is. The metaphor facilitates an exploitable mental confusion.

Kateb seeks to make a case for the utter rejection of this metaphor. He describes the selfless-love he feels towards his parents and the inherent sense of obligation we feel toward them. Sure, self-centeredness can shake us from doing what we feel we should at times. But in the end, it's not through a sense duty however that we feel bound to them. Love overwhelms any reluctance to a sense of duty.

Should we think of our country this way?

Should love of country overwhelm all self-centered reluctance? In particular, is gratitude, a kind of love, the right emotion to feel towards one’s country? Although children are not usually asked to die for their parents, and most parents wouldn’t accept the offer if it were made, some defenders of patriotism imagine the state as a super-parent that may ask its children to die for it.

He then puts some ideas into perspective:

-He does not owe his existence to his country. His genes are not politically identifiable.
-People need society but not any particular country to exist and survive. Nations need people exist, the opposite is false.

He traces the idea of patriotism as we understand it to Socrates and the author Crito. Socrates is waiting to be executed and will not escape. He makes an oration about the how the state supersedes all other associations:

"The mother of all mothers, the father of all fathers...Without the city, it would seem, no one would exist - or at least no human being would grow up as a person with an identity, a role in life, and a purpose for living."

I guess Socrates's position is pretty clear.

Kateb sees this vision of the state as un-democratic and un-enlightenment whereby slaves are children to parents and thus, so are citizens to the state.

So where do we draw the line? I won't really get into the reaction essays. Feel free to read them if you like.

Personally, I feel there is some level of patriotism that is all fine and good. As for the level espoused by Socrates and by many in this country who feel that there is some higher cause to die for or be subservient to, I think it's safe to say that my position is closer to Kateb's.

How 'bout you?