Flag Burning

[CrimsonWhite]

Is THAT all it took??!!

Sometimes it takes a while, but I eventually come around.

 

[GotZoom]

Sometimes it takes a while, but I eventually come around.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

First, you said this:

I haven't seen ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it says extremist idiots are allowed to do whatever the Hell they want if it isn't strictly prohibited by the Constitution.]

Then you say this:

Well gee,thanks for the class. I'm well aware of what the Constitution says and does.

As I stated before, people used to use logic and common sense. Now, if it is not expressly prohibited, then it's fair game, and that's just bullshit.

You may have sworn an oath to defend the constitution at one point, but it's clear that you don't really understand the full scope of what it says. Like most citizens, you seem to mistakenly believe that it's a document which lists rights that the government grants to the people (actually, the correct term in this context would be priviledges.) It isn't. If you think that's bullshit...well okay, but let's not pretend that your opinion is in line with constitution.

More on that from Michael Badnarik...

It appears you are more concerned with your individual right to scratch your ass in public than appropriate public decorum. A proper forum would be a setting where an individual/group of individuals can voice their grievances to the appropriate officials in a reasonable manner. Burning the symbol of this Nation is NOT voicing a grievance in a reasonble manner.

Was the war of independence an appropriate and reasonable manner of voicing grievances? I bet the crown didn't think so.

Should peaceful-but-subversive propaganda be allowed?

Would I personally allow it? No. Is it allowed by law in this Nation? Yes.

Wow.

Well I'll commend you for your honesty if nothing else. You're 180 degrees opposed to those who fought for this nation's independence (and the southern patriots who fought for their independence) however.

You know what? If I see someone exercising their right to burn the flag, I'm going to exercise my right of free speech also. By getting in their face and telling them how disrespect it is. I will exercise my right to rip the flag out of their hands and put the fire out.

And if they lay a hand on me, I will exercise my right to defend myself and kick their ass.

You certainly have a right to tell them how disrespectful it is, but you do not have a right to violate someone else's property rights, any more than a neo-pagan hippie fruitcake has a right to barge on to your land and stop you from burning all your trees down.

There is no way, then, that flag laws can be declared unconstitutional as violations of the First Amendment. The problem with flag laws has nothing to do with free speech, and civil libertarians are caught in their own trap because they do in fact try to separate speech and action, a separation that is artificial and cannot long be maintained.

As in the case of all dilemmas caused by the free-speech doctrine, the entire problem can be resolved by focusing, not on a high-sounding but untenable right to freedom of speech, but on the natural and integral right to private property and its freedom of use. As even famed First Amendment absolutist Justice Hugo Black pointed out, no one has the free-speech right to burst into your room and harangue you about politics.

"The right to freedom of speech" really means the right to hire a hall and expound your views; the "right to freedom of press" (where, as we have seen, speech and action clearly cannot be separated) means the right to print a pamphlet and sell it. In short, free speech or free press rights are a subset, albeit an important one, of the rights of private property: the right to hire, to own, to sell.

Keeping our eye on property rights, the entire flag question is resolved easily and instantly. Everyone has the right to buy (or weave) and therefore own a piece of cloth in the shape and design of an American flag (or in any other design) and to do with it what he will: fly it, burn it, defile it, bury it, put it in the closet, wear it, etc. Flag laws are unjustifiable violations of the rights of private property. (Constitutionally, there are many clauses from which private property rights can be derived.)

On the other hand, no one has the right to come up and burn your flag, or someone else's. That should be illegal, not because a flag is being burned, but because the arsonist is burning your property without your permission. He is violating your property rights.

Note the way in which the focus on property rights solves all recondite issues. Perhaps conservatives, who proclaim themselves defenders of property rights, will be moved to reconsider their support of its invasion. On the other hand, perhaps liberals, scorners of property rights, might be moved to consider that cleaving to them may be the only way, in the long run, to insure freedom of speech and press.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=221

 

[GotZoom]

First, you said this:

Then you say this:

You may have sworn an oath to defend the constitution at one point, but it's clear that you don't really understand the full scope of what it says. Like most citizens, you seem to mistakenly believe that it's a document which lists rights that the government grants to the people (actually, the correct term in this context would be priviledges.) It isn't. If you think that's bullshit...well okay, but let's not pretend that your opinion is in line with constitution.

Was the war of independence an appropriate and reasonable manner of voicing grievances? I bet the crown didn't think so.

Wow.

Well I'll commend you for your honesty if nothing else. You're 180 degrees opposed to those who fought for this nation's independence (and the southern patriots who fought for their independence) however.

You certainly have a right to tell them how disrespectful it is, but you do not have a right to violate someone else's property rights, any more than a neo-pagan hippie fruitcake has a right to barge on to your land and stop you from burning all your trees down.



http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=221

BFD.

You burn the flag, I'm in your face.

You touch me, your ass is mine.

 

[Shattered]

BFD.

You burn the flag, I'm in your face.

You touch me, your ass is mine.

<i>*touch*</i>

 

[GotZoom]

<i>*touch*</i>

*you're mine*

 

[007]

*you're mine*

Her... "ass"... is. I don't know... does Shattered have a nice hiney? :teeth:

 

[GotZoom]

Her... "ass"... is. I don't know... does Shattered have a nice hiney? :teeth:

As a matter of fact, ...

And said nice hiney is mine too.

 

[007]

As a matter of fact, ...

And said nice hiney is mine too.

Well then, you lucky dog Zoom...

 

[5stringJeff]

As a matter of fact, ...

And said nice hiney is mine too.

TTIWWP

 

[Nuc]

BFD.

You burn the flag, I'm in your face.

You touch me, your ass is mine.

What if the person who burns the flag can beat you to a pulp? Then what happens? You want to get your ass kicked to show that you disapprove of an act that's sanctioned by SCOTUS?

 

[GotZoom]

What if the person who burns the flag can beat you to a pulp? Then what happens? You want to get your ass kicked to show that you disapprove of an act that's sanctioned by SCOTUS?

Then I get my ass kicked.

But you know what? When you are defending something that you believe in, getting your ass kicked isn't all that bad sometimes.

I'll ask you the same question I asked onthefence. If someone is in your mom's face calling her a c*&@sucking slut, would you stand there and let him do it because he is bigger than you and can kick your ass or are you going to do whatever you can to stop him?

 

[Nuc]

Then I get my ass kicked.

But you know what? When you are defending something that you believe in, getting your ass kicked isn't all that bad sometimes.

I'll ask you the same question I asked onthefence. If someone is in your mom's face calling her a c*&@sucking slut, would you stand there and let him do it because he is bigger than you and can kick your ass or are you going to do whatever you can to stop him?

Of course I would defend my mom. If you feel that strongly about the flag, then more power to you if you want to fight people who burn it. Personally I don't get wound up about symbols like the flag, statues of religious figures, etc. So I wouldn't fight about the flag unless it was part of a larger confrontation that I was willing to fight about. The only time I got into a physical fight with anyone about politics was with some neo-Nazis. If some hippies want to burn the flag I think it's their right to make fools out of themselves just as so many people in this country do in so many different ways. If they burn the flag to many of us think they are burning everything this country stands for and everybody who has ever contributed to it. However I would guess that most people (citizens) who burn the flag are protesting the direction their country is headed in. Maybe they don't hate America. Non citizens who do it on our soil should leave or be forced to leave.

 

[Gunny]

First, you said this:

Then you say this:

You may have sworn an oath to defend the constitution at one point, but it's clear that you don't really understand the full scope of what it says. Like most citizens, you seem to mistakenly believe that it's a document which lists rights that the government grants to the people (actually, the correct term in this context would be priviledges.) It isn't. If you think that's bullshit...well okay, but let's not pretend that your opinion is in line with constitution.

More on that from Michael Badnarik...

The US Constitution isn't what I think it is because YOU say so? GMAFB. I think I'll stick with my interpretation rather than the anarchist version, thanks.

Was the war of independence an appropriate and reasonable manner of voicing grievances? I bet the crown didn't think so.

And your point is ......?

Wow.

Well I'll commend you for your honesty if nothing else. You're 180 degrees opposed to those who fought for this nation's independence (and the southern patriots who fought for their independence) however.

You would be incorrect. As I have said a couple of times, people used to apply common sense and logic. They fought for personal freedom as they understood it. Those same people would have lynched you in a second for desecrating the US flag.

You dishonestly interpret the mindset and actions of our forefathers to suit your political agenda.

...

 

[Annie]

First, you said this:

Then you say this:

You may have sworn an oath to defend the constitution at one point, but it's clear that you don't really understand the full scope of what it says. Like most citizens, you seem to mistakenly believe that it's a document which lists rights that the government grants to the people (actually, the correct term in this context would be priviledges.) It isn't. If you think that's bullshit...well okay, but let's not pretend that your opinion is in line with constitution.

More on that from Michael Badnarik...

Was the war of independence an appropriate and reasonable manner of voicing grievances? I bet the crown didn't think so.

Wow.

Well I'll commend you for your honesty if nothing else. You're 180 degrees opposed to those who fought for this nation's independence (and the southern patriots who fought for their independence) however.

You certainly have a right to tell them how disrespectful it is, but you do not have a right to violate someone else's property rights, any more than a neo-pagan hippie fruitcake has a right to barge on to your land and stop you from burning all your trees down.



http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=221

I may or may not have agreed with some or all of what you said, but once I saw the link to badnarik...

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The US Constitution isn't what I think it is because YOU say so? GMAFB. I think I'll stick with my interpretation rather than the anarchist version, thanks.

Oh? What part did he get wrong, exactly? Care to back up your assertion with commentary by any of the founders? Being against federal government is not anarchy; or if it is, I guess the whole republican revolution of 1994 was anarchist!

The constitution is not written in chinese or hebrew or sanskrit. It's fairly easy to understand, and if it isn't, you can always read the commentaries by the men who wrote it. In particular, the 9th and 10th amendments. A gigantic amount of what the federal government does is flatly unconstitutional.

The states could pass their own flag laws and that would be constitutionally valid; although it would still violate your inalienable property rights.

And your point is ......?

The point is, you're painting "inappropriate" dissent as un-american, when actually the very foundation of our nation was built on inappropriate means (to the crown).

You would be incorrect. As I have said a couple of times, people used to apply common sense and logic. They fought for personal freedom as they understood it. Those same people would have lynched you in a second for desecrating the US flag.

The "wow" comment was not about your opinion on flag burning, it was about your opinion on subversive speech.

 

[Gunny]

Oh? What part did he get wrong, exactly? Care to back up your assertion with commentary by any of the founders? Being against federal government is not anarchy; or if it is, I guess the whole republican revolution of 1994 was anarchist!

The constitution is not written in chinese or hebrew or sanskrit. It's fairly easy to understand, and if it isn't, you can always read the commentaries by the men who wrote it. In particular, the 9th and 10th amendments. A gigantic amount of what the federal government does is flatly unconstitutional.

You're right. It isn't hard to understand at all. So, quit acting like you know some "big secret" no one else does but those who agree with you.
The states could pass their own flag laws and that would be constitutionally valid; although it would still violate your inalienable property rights.

The whole problem with the Libertarian argument is that it caters to individual whim at the expense of the needs of the many.

Society is built on like-minded individuals with a common bond, common needs, common goals, etc. To ensure all are afforded equal opportunity, the desires of the few are at times sacrified for the needs of the many.

It's rather ludicrous the way you jump back and forth in time to suit your argument. The Constitution is a living document, subject to change based on the reality of now; yet, you'll turn around and start quoting the Founding Fathers as if we should abide now by your interpretation of what you think they meant then.

So let me point something out to you before you proceed ..... being a "Founding Father" gets no auto-respect from me. I think some of them were absolute crackpots, and I find what they say they meant, and the current twisted versions thereof, irrelevant.

I conceded that by law -- the US Constitution; which, IS law regardless how you want to turn it -- people can currently burn the US flag as "freedom of expression."

I also said I will not tolerate it in my presence. I have no problem with freedom of expression until it is taken too far, and to answer your previous question, I guess I would be the one to decide in cases involving myself what "too far" is.



The point is, you're painting "inappropriate" dissent as un-american, when actually the very foundation of our nation was built on inappropriate means (to the crown).

Feel free to put words in my mouth. I did not use the term "un-american," and when I do use it, I mean it.

What I'm painting is the fact that if one feels that it is so bad here that one must symbolically destroy the Nation, then get the Hell out. Put your freakin' money where your mouth is. If there's someplace better, feel free to take you ass and all your personal belongings to it.

If you want to whine and bitch about how you think things are wrong, try using a little gray matter and doing it in a manner in which you will be heard and your issue taken seriously.



The "wow" comment was not about your opinion on flag burning, it was about your opinion on subversive speech.

What about it? Subversive speech = treason to me. That IS against the law. Granted, it gets enforced about as well as our immigration laws, but it IS law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

What about it? Subversive speech = treason to me. That IS against the law. Granted, it gets enforced about as well as our immigration laws, but it IS law.

Actually, there have been two attempts to illegalize subversive speech. Once in 1798 and again in 1917. Both were called Sedition Acts. Both were appealed when Congress, in there infinite wisdom, realized that they violated the First Amendment. Subversive speech may be treason in your eyes, but until you are elected to Congress, it is perfectly legal.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I conceded that by law -- the US Constitution; which, IS law regardless how you want to turn it -- people can currently burn the US flag as "freedom of expression."

Sorry, but you are wrong again. The Constitution isn't law. It is a blueprint for our government. It is simply a set of guidelines that the goverment should follow. The Amendments aren't laws either. The are a list of rights and amended guidelines that are attached to the Constitution. Laws can be repealed, the Constitution can't. It can only be amended. A high school civics class should have covered this with you.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

You're right. It isn't hard to understand at all. So, quit acting like you know some "big secret" no one else does but those who agree with you.

It's not a big secret; these aren't classified documents. It's just that your point of view is a common misconception, that's all.

The whole problem with the Libertarian argument is that it caters to individual whim at the expense of the needs of the many.

No. It's simply based upon the idea that you may do whatever you please with your own property, unless of course it effects the property of others. If you're doing something which is actually harming the "many", then yes, that action should be outlawed.

It's rather ludicrous the way you jump back and forth in time to suit your argument. The Constitution is a living document, subject to change based on the reality of now; yet, you'll turn around and start quoting the Founding Fathers as if we should abide now by your interpretation of what you think they meant then.

The constitution is not a living document. Honestly, you're making the same arguments as leftie socialists now, except they prefer to ignore the 2nd amendment. It's a legal document, which ought to be read with regards to original intent. It's only "living" in the sense that it can be amended. If you don't like what the law says, that's fine. Start a movement to amend it. There is no use in having laws, if we're going to simply make-believe that words can mean whatever we want them to mean. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if we had "living" traffic laws?
Also, do I really need to waste our time looking up quotes proving that the constitution is a document of enumerated powers?

So let me point something out to you before you proceed ..... being a "Founding Father" gets no auto-respect from me. I think some of them were absolute crackpots, and I find what they say they meant, and the current twisted versions thereof, irrelevant.

I don't respect quite all of them; namely Alexander Hamilton. Feel free to quote the ones who disagree with an extremely limited federal government with enumerated powers, of course.

If you want to whine and bitch about how you think things are wrong, try using a little gray matter and doing it in a manner in which you will be heard and your issue taken seriously.

I do actually agree that flag burning is a childish way to express discontent with the government. Even if the flag symbolizes "the government" to you, it symbolizes veterans and freedom and mom and apple pie to a lot of other people.

What about it? Subversive speech = treason to me. That IS against the law. Granted, it gets enforced about as well as our immigration laws, but it IS law.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by subversive speech. If you mean speeches about a plan to overthrow the government, then yes that's treasonous (although in some cases, it's not necessarily a bad thing; see the american revolution, texas war for independence, and war for southern independence). On the other hand, there are some around here who consider statements like "Bush should be impeached" or "Bring our troops home, now" to be subversive speech.