John Singleton with Bob HowardRip Van Australia (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1977), pp. 182-84, under the heading “Nationalism”.

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realise that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation … that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual. ~ Guess Who?»

Isn’t this just a more sophisticated way of saying the phrases that we hear all the time today in Australia: “for the public good” and “in the national interest”?

Our individual rights are often violated in the name of these. Conscription was “in the national interest”. So are the trading restraints placed on the mining industry by our governments. Property resumption laws are “for the public good”, as are the victimless “crime” laws and involuntary commitment laws. There are numerous such examples and a vast amount of evidence available to show that the idea that the interests of the individual should be subjugated to those of the greater number is commonly held and accepted throughout our country. This is more than a little frightening in its implications.

The statement at the head of the page was made, probably in all sincerity, by a man who really put it into practice, jack boots and all: Adolph Hitler.1 Another man, remembered more kindly in the history books, said the same thing. He said, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country”. That, of course, was the misguided, but charismatic President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address, 20 January 1961.

Adolph one more time:

Once the whole nation has really succeeded in grasping the fact that these measures call for a sacrifice on the part of each individual, then they will lead to something far greater than a mere lessening of material needs. From them will grow the conviction that the community of the nation is not merely an empty concept, but that it is something which really is vital and living.2

Milton Friedman has pointed out that President Kennedy’s statement said nothing about the relationship existing between citizen and government that was worthy of the ideals of free people living in a free society. As Professor Friedman analysed it:

[T]he paternalistic “what you can do for your country” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The orgasmic “what you can do for your country” implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them.3

There is no such thing as a “national interest” or a “common or public good”. There are only the separate interests and “goods” of or for all the individuals that make up a society. In some extraordinary circumstance, these may happen to coincide, but they need not necessarily do so. Any person, or group of people, who take it upon themselves to determine and enforce what they believe constitutes the “public good” or “national interest” are actually seeking to impose their opinions, values or tastes on the rest of the people. To this extent, they are merely copying Adolph Hitler.

Appeals to nationalism go far beyond simple recognition of a shared heritage and common customs and traditions. There is nothing wrong with being proud of one’s country, one’s way of life. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve it. But, we must never let our enthusiasm and visions obscure the principles involved. If you like the work of Picasso and wish to share the joy he brings you and “lift” the cultural level of your fellows, you can do any number of things to bring this about — except one: you cannot force people to purchase, study, or appreciate his works.

Similarly, “nationalists” among us cannot force the rest of us to make sacrifices for what they determine as the “national interest” or “national heritage” or whatever. When politicians start talking of nationalism and all its trappings, they are simply doing what any group of gangsters tries to do: stake out an area. This serves the double purpose of serving notice to outsiders to stay clear, and rationalising the domination and systematic fleecing of those inside.

Footnotes

  1. Adolph Hitler, Speeches 1933-1938 (Terra-Marc Office: Berlin, 1938), p. 61f.
  2. Ibid, p. 70.
  3. Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1962), p. 2.