Flag burning, Constitutional?

[running down a dream]

Flag burning is destroying the symbol of a nation that has given you the right to speak freely and live your own life. In some other countries you could be prosecuted or even killed for this. Flag burning is not right because it desecrates the symbol of a free nation for a case that concerns one person or a certain group of people inside the nation.

And could you clarify on what you mean by "freedom of speech didnt say anything about points or anything?"

why is desecrating the symbol of a free nation bad?? even if it gives me the right to speak and live??

i meant that the 1st amendment doesn't talk about what the point of free speech is it just grants it.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

If the government is not taxing us at least a little bit, then how are they to pay for public education, police officers, government officials, and the primary role of government, defense?

They wouldn't be. Presumably new companies would spring up and meet the needs of the market.

 

[The Fat Controller]

America is a free nation, and I have the ability to say that seeing as I live here. To be free does not mean anarchy, nor does it mean you can do whatever you want. Of course ultimate freedom for one person would mean that, but to give an entire nation freedom means everyone can't do anything they want. This may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm really not, I'll explain if you need.

What you're essentially saying is that America is a free nation only within the bounds of your own narrow, admittedly partisan definition of what freedom is.

A Chomsky quote for you:

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we see as willing or unwitting instruments.""

 

[Tgump]

I disagree with your statement of "taxation is stealing" though. The United States Government more or less owns the land from coast to coast, regardless of what property you buy. So, in effect, taxes could be considered a rent.

Taxes also pay for roads, and road repair. Without taxes, we don't have roads. And sorry, I doubt anyone is going to pitch money towards a road if they don't have to.

First paragraph: Rent is different from stealing / taxation. With rent, you as a paying renter use your free will to pay the fee and stay at the location. If you are American-born, you are stolen from with no will as to where that stolen money goes.

Second paragraph: Tens of thousands of people die on government-funded roads every year. Government-funded roads are in an advanced state of disrepair, typical of all government-run services in that they slowly deteriorate until the economy is in a deep depression and the entire government collapses. In a free market, there will always be roads. If there is demand for roads, someone with adequate wealth to build a road will build said roads and likely have a toll booth. Those who have enough wealth and are compassionate for less wealthy people will build roads with reduced or eliminated tolls. That's why free market services are ALWAYS better than government-run services.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

I'm not going to bother replying to your entire post, because I would basically be repeating similar things as Finn and Tgump.

The United States Government more or less owns the land from coast to coast, regardless of what property you buy.

No state can legitimately own any property as it is all acquired through coercion. I can point a big gun at you and force you to give me money, but does that really mean the money is now mine?

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible idea. Lets pretend one of your best friends is getting raped. You call the defense agency for help. They say, "Sorry, your friend is not a paying customer of ours, we can't help you." And nobody helps your friend, because nobody is obligated to.

That's such a juvenile argument that I almost don't even want to respond.
Anyway, that would basically never happen with any decent company. They likely wouldn't say "no we won't help". Think of what terrible publicity that would be for the company.
Also, it seems like it would be more likely that groups of businesses near each other might hire a security company to keep their area clean.
Look, I'm not going to pretend I'd know how private companies will respond to meet demand, but that certainly doesn't mean the other option is theft and violence.

But you see, I disagree with that. The good for the majority outweighs the good for the individual. And, with your government without protection, this could and possibly would happen. Someone wants to build a road, someone's house is in the way, so they hire some people to destroy the house. Golly gee, that sounds even more fair. And might I add, less of a breach to your rights.

So your argument is now....without the "necessary" violence of the government there will be....violence anyway?
Riddle me this: why don't people do that same thing now? And what would not having a state change?

Generally, liberals, aka Democrats

I'd consider myself a liberal, in that I believe in freedom as the highest value. The leftists stole our word

So in the end, the man with the bigger stick gets his/her way? Anyone that is weak, or, too poor to buy protection is stolen from, raped, perhaps killed?

Yes because with out the wonderful state looking over us we would all suddenly become immoral criminals -.-

 

[Tgump]

And which country remains to be one of the most influential and greatest military powers? Those third world countries without government and taxes? I think not. Source(s). Almost all countries have some form of taxation - Socialist regimes which you seem to be supporting are all third world or turning third world.

But you see, I disagree with that. The good for the majority outweighs the good for the individual. And, with your government without protection, this could and possibly would happen. Someone wants to build a road, someone's house is in the way, so they hire some people to destroy the house. Golly gee, that sounds even more fair. And might I add, less of a breach to your rights. Private defense agencies. Hire someone to guard your house.


So in the end, the man with the bigger stick gets his/her way? Anyone that is weak, or, too poor to buy protection is stolen from, raped, perhaps killed? In an anarcho-capitalistic society, there is always a way to create wealth. Anyone that cannot afford protection will use the free market to create wealth until they are able to afford protection.

Who else would have money to thwart off a terrorist attack? My family and I sure don't have millions set aside for nuclear research and construction. Does your family? Do you have a bomb shelter perhaps? Read above. Turn wealth into more wealth until you can use that wealth to create more wealth.

 

[Easter Bunny2]

And which country remains to be one of the most influential and greatest military powers? Those third world countries without government and taxes? I think not. Source(s). Almost all countries have some form of taxation - Socialist regimes which you seem to be supporting are all third world or turning third world.

But you see, I disagree with that. The good for the majority outweighs the good for the individual. And, with your government without protection, this could and possibly would happen. Someone wants to build a road, someone's house is in the way, so they hire some people to destroy the house. Golly gee, that sounds even more fair. And might I add, less of a breach to your rights. Private defense agencies. Hire someone to guard your house.

So in the end, the man with the bigger stick gets his/her way? Anyone that is weak, or, too poor to buy protection is stolen from, raped, perhaps killed? In an anarcho-capitalistic society, there is always a way to create wealth. Anyone that cannot afford protection will use the free market to create wealth until they are able to afford protection.

Who else would have money to thwart off a terrorist attack? My family and I sure don't have millions set aside for nuclear research and construction. Does your family? Do you have a bomb shelter perhaps? Read above. Turn wealth into more wealth until you can use that wealth to create more wealth.

You misunderstand the way the American government operates. You refer to how the government can build a road through someone's home by just destroying it and no one caring. This is completely false.

The government uses a policy of Eminent Domain. This policy states that the government can seize any property owned privately IF the construction planned for the site is for the good of the general public (The government cannot seize any property owned by a corporation that provides a good to the public that is a necessity). BUT, the government must pay the owner(s) market price for whatever land/house that they own. So the ones losing their property are paid the normal amount they would sell for. The owners of this land also have the right to appeal the claim by going to court and arguing their case.

Wealth is earned, as all would agree upon. But in a democratic-republic such as America, it gets harder and harder to earn wealth as economy and society degrades. This does not make it impossible. Difficult yes, but impossible no. If you are not willing to be patient and wait for an opportunity than you do not deserve the wealth.

Wealth does not create wealth, it creates opportunities. One must be willing to go after these opportunities and not hope for the best.

Finally, protection from what? Read above, the government does not come in with armed forces, they come with money. Is it paying you off? Sure, but what you are saying is completely false. If you hire a private defense agency that refuses the government access to your land, the government has a legal right to force their way in (if the procedure falls under Eminent Domain.)

So please, brush up on your American government before you assume.

 

[FreedomFight]

I'm going to side with Viper on this.

If you anarcho-capitalists really wanted it so badly, then go start your own country. Oh wait, you can't - no military.

Let's be realists, not hypothetical presumists. Now that Shredderbeam is gone, it doesn't mean the rest of the staff have to fill his shoes with the same but much poorer argued explanations.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

the government does not come in with armed forces, they come with money.

Well cmon, it does give you money but you basically have to accept it...not much of a choice.

I believe it is such a strong and prospering country because of its government and way of life.

I can sort of agree, compared to other governments, we are fairly free. That doesn't mean that a lesser evil should be any more acceptable.

But to sum up my opinion with our previous argument about government.

• I do believe a government police force is needed to keep everyone safe
• I do believe in the good for the majority outweighs the good for the few
• I do believe in democracy

How far will you go with thinking the good for the majority is better than the good for the minority?
I don't understand how you don't support social programs and taxation but still think that.
Would it be acceptable for 51% of the country to steal from the other 49%?
As you will obviously answer no, then why is it ok for many people to steal one persons property (eminent domain)? What's the difference? Where do you draw the line?

Of course in this day in age, anyone that is wealthy may hire guards to watch their house, but that is an expense that should not be necessary.

It is because the government sponsored thugs (police) have never protected me, have never helped me recover stolen belongings, nothing. All they've done for me is pull me over from the road, be rude, then give me a speeding ticket.

Plus, with your system, you're guaranteeing that some won't have protection. For the sake of argument, lets pretend your country consisted of 10 people. People A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I and J. If A hires B to watch his house, then B must hire C to watch his, C hired D, D hires E, E hires F, F hires G, G hires H, H hires I, I hires J, J hires A.

Now everyone is paying others to watch over their house. With this system, no one has time to work a real job of producing goods such as products and food.

In the current system, we'll pretend A and B are the protection, and C-J have jobs producing good and services. Inevitably, A and B can't watch over, and keep a close eye on all the houses at once, but the world is more productive.

Or perhaps the 10 people would realize it is in their best interests to not steal from each other.

 

[FacelessVoid]

I don't see any problem with burning a flag. You should have some way of saying you don't agree with your country politicians. Id better burn their pictures not the flag.

 

[wombakage]

its a pice of cloth that represents a system. if they are scaared of being challenged thats immoral. you ushould be able to burn em. now if you were to throw a flaming flag at a government building in hopes that it would catch fire thats a no-no

 

[1227]

The burning of an object is to cleanse it of all impurities. (such as the burning of a cross) To do so is actually more patriotic to the states then anything but fighting for the nation.

However if a foreigner does it, they have no contitutional rights in the States. They deserve to be shot on sight for disrespecting the nation in such a way.

 

[2percent]

It does offend me, however the 1st ammendment is a two way street. It's funny they way our freedoms work.

 

[Straggler]

The burning of an object is to cleanse it of all impurities. (such as the burning of a cross) To do so is actually more patriotic to the states then anything but fighting for the nation.

However if a foreigner does it, they have no contitutional rights in the States. They deserve to be shot on sight for disrespecting the nation in such a way.

You're an idiot. This isn't the KKK, we don't shoot people for being foreign/different/unpatriotic. It's just a piece of cloth, sure it symbolizes the US, and it's bad if you're burning somebody else's flag, because that's kind of offensive and weird, but in this country anybody is allowed to express their feelings in a nonviolent way, and as other people said, a flag is worth no more than the materials that made it. Take your stupid confederate flags and gtfo of the SFA.

 

[The Riddler_]

The burning of an object is to cleanse it of all impurities. (such as the burning of a cross) To do so is actually more patriotic to the states then anything but fighting for the nation.

However if a foreigner does it, they have no contitutional rights in the States. They deserve to be shot on sight for disrespecting the nation in such a way.

Yea seriosly? Do you know the meaning of anything? You guys know nothing. And please, would you kindly tell me why you have the confederate flag in your sig and avatar? I bet you don't even know why they went to war.

Burning the flag might be offensive because of what it stands for, but it's nothing more than cloth. But at the same time, why burn something that protects your rights? If you don't like something enough to burn a symbol as powerful as that, why stay?

 

[Triggerfinger]

To answer the threads question, Yes it is Constitutional. Do I agree with it? No. Are there laws against it? Yes. I believe so as Easter Bunny put.

In my state of mind, if an American burns the flag while chanting Anti-American sentiments he should be given a plane ticket to some other country. Like North Korea or Iran for example. Or better yet light him on fire. That would appease me too.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

In my state of mind, if an American burns the flag while chanting Anti-American sentiments he should be given a plane ticket to some other country. Like North Korea or Iran for example. Or better yet light him on fire. That would appease me too.

You can't not support the government and still like living there?

 

[Triggerfinger]

while chanting "red, white, and blue, we spit on you"

You can't not support the government and still like living there?

There is a line between supporting and liking the government. I don't like the government now, but I still support it. Why? Because when I support democracy it supports me back by granting me all my lovely freedoms I enjoy.

But when you are chanting things such as those I quoted above AND burning a flag to prove a point? You are not supporting the government by doing that. You are further alienating yourself from it. How? By showing that you don't need a government...well if that's the case go live somewhere else.

 

[NickV]

But it's your choice what you do with your first amendment rights. I don't think you squarely need to set your ideas off what other people did. No, I don't support the idea of flag burning, but I support having the right to choose whether or not to do it.

Your view is pretty close to mine on this one. Everyone heard of the domino effect? Well, if we outlaw something like burning a flag, regardless of how immoral it is to disrespect it, it is still covered by freedom of expression. Next thing you know, vulgar speech is outlawed because it basically has the same idea as burning the flag when it comes to disrespect, after that more rights we had before will fall through, due to making the exception with the American flag. We don't want that. So I don't think it will ever be outlawed, besides, how the flag burners will be treated for the rest of their lives is bad enough in my opinion.

 

[Christmas Crackers]

Flag burning is only existent because there was a time in US history in which the government needed to instill a sense of patriotism in its citizens in order to become more dominant/seek out interest/succeed in war. There is no need for such nationalism any more as the government no longer needs to resort to these types of measures.