there were some moments in time when during some wars, or in special occasions like the death of jfk and 9 11, there was a shared sense of national identity , Ie something 90%++ of Americans deeply agreed about in the gut about their country, but in normal times that was never the case at all no.

certainly up until the civil war there was no national identity, given the divide between slave states and abolitionist states.

the country started day one profoundly divided on core moral and identitarian issues.

then the Catholic v Protestant divide after mass Irish and Italian immigration, the interventionist v nativist divide and so on and on.

Americans were mostly divided for most of their history on core elements of what elsewhere would have constituted a national identity, basically all the times except when they perceived to be under mortal attack.

a little like Greek polis who could only agree when they had a clear common enemy but mostly fought each others

Considering every empire has fallen throughout history, this is theoretical, but can a country persist over time with a practically non-existent national identity? My intuition says no.

Not to say that strongly nationalistic countries are stronger; you have to have the right kind of national identity. But having almost no national identity seems like a death sentence.

The state is not entitled to a national identity, nor is it imperative to defense.

Define "acting".

Cops torturing suspects is acting. Supporting the torture as a citizen is not.

a federation can for centuries if it's flexible enough, maybe losing some pieces and gaining some others, in the sense that the probability that what today is NYS and what today is Maryland are part of the same country in 2450 is much higher than NYS and Texas.

but countries can be replaced without necessarily that being a huge problem. countries are a tool for prosperity to be ditched and changed the moment they don't work anymore toward that goal.

there isn't any intrinsic moral value to preserve in countries, while there is some intrinsic moral value to preserve unity of some areas or some parts of the rule of law regardless of which country governs.

which btw is the history of northern Italy and parts of Germany: you can be at the top of the curve of civilization, even the richest worldwide at some point (Ie one of the best places possible that exist), going through tumultuous changes in political assets if the core identitarian elements of what make your place great stay intact. Cities and their immediate countryside in Italy and Germany case.

My city I think was part of at least 18 different "countries" (some times, independent) in the last 1k years.

Well said.

well then how do you justify the existence of crimes related to planning crimes?

I'd say the burden of proof should be very high and means, motive, and opportunity ought to be weighed in the prosecution and sentencing.

January 6 was a deadly travesty. I don't think every sympathizer should be put away.

The Branch Davidians might have been a threat worth prosecuting. I oppose incinerating them.

There are obviously gray areas and case-by-case blah, blah, blah, but planning a crime is very difficult to prosecute. Why it takes so long for FBI embeds to remain undercover before a sting.

well if you plan an horrific currently illegal outcome through political action, trasparentely, why wouldn't that be enough to use the force of government to stop you?

basically why shouldn't we criminalize political outcomes outside a predefined range as completely illegal to pursue? that's not about the 1a rather limits to political action.

politics can be crimes and are in some countries allied with the USA, and they are considered developed democracies by most observers

In your mind, is national identity meaningless to the well being of the citizenry over time? It sounds like that’s your position. Again, I’m having an unsettling intuitive response to that position for some reason, and I don’t consider myself a political person.

you need group identity but in no way it needs to be national?

like why would a new Yorker need to feel national identity, to be a proud and productive honest citizen, if his new Yorker identity is far better for him?

Yeah. America doesn't really have much of an identity. It's kind of a Rorshach test as it is. If anything, that's our identity. Maybe? Not fully embracing all differences or even tolerating them; just not criminalizing them.

If you're talking about legislative immunity, that's a thing:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legislative_immunity

If that's not what you're talking about, I'm not fully understanding you.

Yeah, a group identity is necessary to say “no” when the impulse arises to exploit or harm your fellow citizen. A nation cannot survive on laws alone, especially in a secular environment. I feel like reality is showing us that and we are failing to receive the message.

if you remove welfare for far away places of the country, and most laws are local (you know, state rights, minimal federal government role), why should you even consider someone 2000 miles away a fellow in any sense? you keep some things together because it's practical but he could die tomorrow and your life is identical and viceversa good riddance

i am saying in Germany if you run a party on a Nazi platform that's illegal.

I am saying we could do the same in every country for all the platform that should never be part of the west

In a country where everyone in favor of the social safety net is dubbed a communist and everyone who doesn't hate police is subbed a fascist, I don't think that'll go well.

I concede to you that it doesn’t have to be national for everyone. A more local group identity would work too.

well clearly as for all constitutional level changes (we are talking amending the 1a basically) thresholds to pass it would be far higher than 50%+1.

but there might be majorities big enough to say ban political activity aimed at installing sharia law

I chant it every day, but that's just from envious begrudgery due to their legalising weed in several states.

Closer to half the country at this point. I think it's 22/50 without checking.

You're goddamn right

this made me think of the title