Citizens and obligations

Amit Verma, in this post, expressed uneasiness at what Sulman Rushdie wrote about obligations of citizens, in Amit's words.

"I'm not comfortable with the way Rushdie phrases it. I think the basis of every society should be a respect for individual freedoms, that allows every person to live his or her life as he or she pleases, provided they don't infringe on anyone else's freedom to do so. As countries change, I think it is dangerous to hold on to a notion of what words like "French" or "Indian" or "American" mean, and to insist that everyone in those countries adhere to those notions. That opens the way for cultural nationalism. Our values, instead, should be based on basic human rights, on a respect of individual liberties."

This is what I think is libertarian position. I don't feel comfortable with this position, tragically I am not knowledgable enough to propose another position or even convincingly refute it.

The reason I feel uncomfortable is according to libertanism society is aggregate of individuals and the only benefit to be derived is in form of security or division of labour.

IMO, there is something more about society, just like human is not just the sum total of individual cells. This, I admit is not a very useful analogy and what is more it leans towards collectivists ideologies. However I think it is possible to balance individual and society, not diminishing either or making meaningless.

But coming to the question of citizenship, I think what Mr Rushdie advocates is a very good proposition, every nation has its own ethos.

Just to consider two examples, all the american blogs that I read, most of the arguements, for or against any issue move around american constitution.

I was puzzled by this approach, I always thought that why should anyone in as civilized country as US (this was before I became aware of reality of the forbidding alleys) require guns and such an impressive collection at that! and how can any sensbile not see the inherent absurdity of defending guns regardless of what constitution says.
Similarly I was surprised controversy regarding "flag burning", I was of the opinion considering that flag was a symbol for what nation stands , such acts should be punishable regardless of what consitution says.
However, slowly I have realized that to Americans constitution is not mererly a document, it is what defines them and the nation. Unless and untill , there are overwhelming reasons and irrefutable logic, any law which proposes to go against grain of constitution is much more than frowned upon. In short, American essence is American constitution.

On the contrary, Indians never base their arguements on Indians constitution, unless it is of highly esoteric nature. Most of Indians will base their arguements on their world view.
Admittedly one of the reasons is that American constitution is brief and to the point, whileIndian constitution tries too hard and doesnt exactly overwhelm one. However, one other arguement (and in my view more signifant) is that America started with its constitution, it is the foundation on which US stands today, so it is natural that it will be the essence of americans, whereas, India existed long before the constitution and what is more much of what it achieved is much greater than any constitution could and what is more important beyond the scope of constitution.
What it means is that while our legal issues are still settled by framework of constitution, the amendment to constitution itself is more flexible and can draw from more sources.

In the similar fashion German can be described as logical , Russian can be descirbed as inherently christian or paradoxically tartar.

What this means is while in a free society everybody is entitled to his or her opinion, in order to participate in a meaningful way a person should try to alien with the ethos.

Ghettoziation or disdain will be impediment, in real life, to the very tolerance that libertarianism aspires for.

Update : Sandeep weighs in, I think where Mr Amit Verma and Me (and possibly Sandeep ) differ is , according to him libertanism is GUT of sociology and rest is the matter of detail. This may be true ofcourse, I have yet to form enough opinion of mine, however any theory which ignores reality for ideal, remains just that, a theory. The claim that nation has ceased to be relevant because particular idea is all what is neccessary for progress of humanity may be honest and correct, but in reality it sets up absolutist position, which in most cases lead to intellectual and often physical tyranny.

Nation, religion anything that has arisen is not because of an ancient conspiracy hatched by bourgeois/religious freak to exploit poor or undermine intellect, but often out of genuine inquiry into imponderable, the results might have been incorrect, but the process has continued, if progress of humanity is coupled with libertanism or indeed any -ism, the process of engagement and disengagement with what exists has to be done with reason and patience, seizing the bastille is a romantic idea, but to be used occasionally.