The Wrath Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 If this passes, I think it's high time for a revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 If this passes, I think it's high time for a revolution.Why this issue in particular, as opposed to any number of other obscene laws that get passed or court decisions that get handed down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted June 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 Silencing of political speech is, in my opinion, the fastest way to totalitarianism. It's the kind of thing that happens in Iran and China, not the United States. McCain-Feingold was bad enough, but at least all it does it limit the endorsement of parties or candidates. If this passes, it takes away your very right to protest, not parties or candidates, but the government itself. What's next after that? Though it may not happen in my lifetime, I think that a second American Civil War is inevitable. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Anthem: "Through all the darkness, through all the shame of which men are capable, the spirit of man will remain alive on this earth. It may sleep, but it will awaken. It may wear chains, but it will break through." It has happened throughout history and I believe it will happen again once the last remaining free country on Earth moves too close to totalitarianism. The chains will be broken at some point in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 Moose, I think anybody who understands Objectivism sees why this law is wrong, but I find it extremely libertarian to choose to raise hell about these laws in particular - laws that suppress irrational (albeit not objectively illegal) behavior. Why spend your time and energy defending the right of losers to get stoned and the right of anti-American fanatics to burn the symbol of freedom? Why not spend your time challenging the gross injustice of anti-trust laws, the progressive "education" dumbing down our children, and the weak-kneed appeasement of terrorists in Guantanamo? I'll consider it "high time for a revolution" when protesting these absurdities is made illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted June 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 Because it's political speech. "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire I am as against flag-burning as anyone here, but it starts a trend in motion that I think is far more dangerous than the abridging of property rights. Freedom of speech is, in my opinion, the most crucial freedom that we have. If the government takes our property, at least we can speak out in protest. If the government takes our speech, our property rights disappear by proxy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 I am as against flag-burning as anyone here, but it starts a trend in motion that I think is far more dangerous than the abridging of property rights. Freedom of speech is, in my opinion, the most crucial freedom that we have. If the government takes our property, at least we can speak out in protest. If the government takes our speech, our property rights disappear by proxy. Sure, but I think you're committing a non-sequitur; the fact that certain kinds of speech on the fringe are being suppressed does not indicate that the first amendment as we know it is doomed. Freedom of speech has been under attack long before this proposed amendment, whether it's the 1927 government takeover of the airwaves and subsequent regulation of them, or the recent campaign finance reform laws. Again, I'm just as much against this as you, but choose your battles wisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 Moose, I think anybody who understands Objectivism sees why this law is wrong, but I find it extremely libertarian to choose to raise hell about these laws in particular - laws that suppress irrational (albeit not objectively illegal) behavior. Why spend your time and energy defending the right of losers to get stoned and the right of anti-American fanatics to burn the symbol of freedom? Why not spend your time challenging the gross injustice of anti-trust laws, the progressive "education" dumbing down our children, and the weak-kneed appeasement of terrorists in Guantanamo? I'll consider it "high time for a revolution" when protesting these absurdities is made illegal. I have to agree with you Oakes. This is purely an idiotic law being created for political purposes. However, there are so many more important battles to be fought and won. The campaign finance reform legislation that was pushed through by John McCain and Russ Feingold is far more damaging to political free speech than taking away the right of fools to burn the American flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonebuddha Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 This is really an issue about private property not free speech. If I want to burn a flag which I own, it's my business. What if instead of burning a flag, I choose to shred it with a knife? What if I leave skidmarks on the American flag boxer shorts I own? What if I have a flag with only 49 stars? I see a niche market forming, any Hank Reardon entrepreneur types want to start up a company selling "close but not exact replicas of US flags"? Oh I forgot, private property no longer exists in Amerika, thanks to the supreme court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studentofobjectivism Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 Oh I forgot, private property no longer exists in Amerika, thanks to the supreme court. So in effect, this law was made because we have no right to burn the government's property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 I remember when i was about 5 years old i saw a person burning an American flag and it filled me with so much injustice. It made me so angry and i told my dad that i thought it should be illegal. And i still remember what he told me. He said, "It's their own right to burn that flag, and all they are doing is proving what a great country we live in because those people are taking advantage of the freedom that only America can provide and showing the world why so many people love America." NOw, it still makes me angry when i see someone burning an American flag because it is the greatest country in the world, but i think it would be an immoral and unconstitutional law that says that one cannt burn a flag that they own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 This amendment is slightly different than from the one they tried to pass before. Basically, burning a flag per se as before wouldn't be illegal but flag burning in a contextual basis now would be. It's on this basis that once the media really gets ahold of it that the law won't pass muster with the public. And as it was pointed out before, just like it was illegal to burn draft cards, smart business people created striking likenesses of draft cards for guys to burn just like people will create things that look just like flags but aren't "technically" US flags. And then there will be endless cases about ones with 49 stars because we don't recognize Hawaii as a real state or there are extra stripes or wrong colors etc that will render any laws totally meaningless. Actually, I've burned flags before. Really. I was in the Sons of the American Legion when I was a kid and one thing my dad did was dispose of old ratty flags in a ceremony by burning flags. It was done reverently but I could imagine if I wore a button saying "I hate 'enter current president'" at the ceremony I could be guilt of violating the law. Oh the silliness of it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 It was done reverently but I could imagine if I wore a button saying "I hate 'enter current president'" at the ceremony I could be guilt of violating the law. Oh the silliness of it all. In other words, intentions determine legality. Not only is this a blatant violation of objective law, it’s also an attempt at making certain thoughts illegal – “crimethink.” As stonebuddha pointed out, this is really a property rights issue. In fact, there is no objective distinction between a right to speech and right to property – which is why the mainstream has such trouble differentiating "symbolic speech" from "action." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Oh I forgot, private property no longer exists in Amerika, thanks to the supreme court. I know this is a side issue, but what is the origin of spelling America with a "k" in order to then make it have some sinister meaning? (which I only assume is the purpose) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I know this is a side issue, but what is the origin of spelling America with a "k" in order to then make it have some sinister meaning? (which I only assume is the purpose)It's spelled with a "k" in German; this practice arose in the 60's by leftists who equated the US with Nazi Germany. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrs Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I have also seen "AmeriKKKa", linking America to the Ku Klux Klan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States According to CNN flag-burning was prohibited by Federal law and by the law in 48 states until the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 1989 (by a thin 5-4 majority). Every time a similar amendment has been proposed, a vast majority of lawmakers has voted for it. The only thing that has kept it at bay is that it has repeatedly fallen slightly short of the 2/3rd vote required in the senate (67 votes are needed, last time it got 63). I suppose I should not be surprised that lawmakers (products of the culture) have such an unprincipled approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 I know this is a side issue, but what is the origin of spelling America with a "k" in order to then make it have some sinister meaning? (which I only assume is the purpose) Don't forget the really bad mini-series in the mid 80's starringChris Christopherson about how the life in the US would be like if the Soviet Union took over. Basically rationing was imposed, thought crime, your usual Soviet stuff.... which considering the star it was very controversial at the time. That is the first time I saw the K in America used to denote a Soviet styled US. Oh god when it aired the left had churches and organizations with form letters protesting ABC and the Reagan administration etc even before it aired. Boy was it controversial for an otherwise load of pablum. Not a total whitewash but pretty close. Ice Cube put out an album called Amerkkka's Most Wanted that was pretty popular. So that may be the origin of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 In other words, intentions determine legality. Not only is this a blatant violation of objective law, it’s also an attempt at making certain thoughts illegal – “crimethink.” As stonebuddha pointed out, this is really a property rights issue. In fact, there is no objective distinction between a right to speech and right to property – which is why the mainstream has such trouble differentiating "symbolic speech" from "action." Exactly my point. The new version of the amendment contextualizeses the non-crime so it blatantly violates not only objective law but common flippin' sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Thebert Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 In other words, intentions determine legality. Not only is this a blatant violation of objective law, it’s also an attempt at making certain thoughts illegal – “crimethink.” This is not unlike existing "hate crime" statutes that permit two murders (which are objectively identical in every detail) to be punished differently, based solely on what the perpetrator was *thinking* at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 It's spelled with a "k" in German; this practice arose in the 60's by leftists who equated the US with Nazi Germany. Ahh, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.