...he says while sipping a glass of nationally funded water, on his computer which arrived via nationally funded sea ports, which sends data over nationally funded computer networks, using a protocol developed with national funding.

>he says while sipping a glass of nationally funded water

The water wasn't created by the government, the government didn't build the pipes carrying it to my house, and any first world country could have helped to facilitate this glass of water just as much as the country I happen to inhabit.

>using a protocol developed with national funding

Along with contributions from Xerox, BBN, UCL, a number of US universities... And why, exactly, does the fact that a government partially funded a nice project mean that nationalism is a good motive?

This is a tax debate, and with any tax debate, it's worth remembering what our tax dollars get us. It seems like you're equating "nationalism" with "government", which is most certainly too broad.

>It seems like you're equating "nationalism" with "government", which is most certainly too broad.

No, this is precisely what you are doing. I mentioned that we should not make arguments based on nationalism, and you responded.

>...he says while sipping a glass of nationally funded water, on his computer which arrived via nationally funded sea ports, which sends data over nationally funded computer networks, using a protocol developed with national funding.

which, as you just mentioned, has to do with government, not nationalism.

Your comment came in response to someone calling not paying taxes, "unpatriotic", and saying the US is a "blob of land delineated by imaginary lines", when in reality the whole point of this debate revolves around the fact that entities residing in this "blob of land" are expected to pay taxes, in return for which a whole host of benefits are granted.

It's not nationalism to malign those who benefit from the collective tax paying body without contributing to it.

> Can we stick to arguments not based on nationalist fervor?

We can, perhaps. The POTUS generally has a harder time winning arguments by doing so.