Legendary French philosopher and author once said: I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The same thing be applied to flag burning. If you appreciate the United States Constitution, your freedom of speech and the non-aggression principle then you should, despite disagreeing with the act, never want burning the American flag, or any country’s flag, to be an illegal act.
Well, unfortunately, President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted out that he thinks flag burning should result in imprisonment or the loss of citizenship. Although most people who burn the flag are social justice warriors who want to implement socialism and ban shampoo products, this is an act that is part of the freedom of speech.
Here is the tweet:
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016
“Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”
Remember, the First Amendment exists not to talk about the weather, but to protect all types of speech, even speech you may disagree with.
Moreover, if you want to prohibit the act of flag burning then you detest private property. Most flags are privately owned so by endorsing this policy then you are setting a precedent and giving the federal government the permission to tell you what to do with your property.
Free market economist Murray Rothbard touched upon this matter in his famous article “The Flag Flap“:
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.
Why are politicians obsessed with banning flag burning? Throughout the history of the nation, there has always been one politician to bring this matter up. In 2005, then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton introduced a bill that would outlaw burning the U.S. flag, which is ironic because a lot of her millennial supporters are doing that exact same thing.
When did some libertarians ever believe that Donald Trump was a limited government, constitutionalist? This is bad, and a sign of authoritarian things to come.
Last time this was big news the question came up about flags on clothing. What about shirts that look like they were cut from a flag? Napkins that look like flags, How about a cake? You can’t have your flag and eat it too. The highways were strewn with flags that fell off of cars when Bush II went into Iraq.
At what point do you put some on in the gulag who has neglected to replace his tattered and faded flag? What about a Flag with an image superimposed?
If the gubment wants to make burning a flag illegal, they better address flying one that is faded and tattered, painted etc, because that is going to be the new protest.
Or when Michelle Obama wore a flag dress with her husband and yet not one word from the liberal press when she did?
I’m a patriotic guy myself, but ‘free speech’ and ‘free expression’ does mean that sooner or later someone will be offended by it. And flags and symbolism and anthems in general are used to get a response from the Herd, often to whip that Herd into a ‘patriotic furor’ to run off to fight and die in foreign lands for nonsensical ideals, pretty much always for corporate profits and empire expansion that never benefits the Herd. I think this is all a non issue, more smoke and mirrors.