In short, the American Flag represents this- that I have the right to burn it.
So do I burn it, or protect it?
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A monkey suffering from obsessive-compulsive-disorder sits on my keyboard and, at some point of time during its perpetual random typing, generates meaningful text. I'm trying to play God and capture them whenever they appear. This blog represents an entity in the Universe wherein entropy actually decreases...
5 comments:
Is the american flag an entity of its own? What gives it legitimacy and does it guarantee a libertarian paradise?
(question-laam ketta naangalum question thaan thiruppi keppom)
@bhuvanesh: if the american flag was merely a stand alone entity, then there is no consequence of burning it, hence my question does not exist and your second question is trivial. if both the flag and the act of burning it have to be taken as symbolic (the connotation im using here), then your question does not exist and (even if it did) mine remains to be answered.
Let me put it clearly.
The American flag being an entity of its own doesnt mean that it doesnt symbolise anything.( From where in the world did you derive this?)
And with that the entire construct of your answer vanishes. Now, going to your post, how do you make the assertion that the american flag represents your right to burn it?(reads like a statement from soemone who read Rawls halfway through his sleep)
Entities which derive legitimacy through whatever democratic means that exists then, continue to judge the legitimacy of and the need for their existence within the framework they evolve after they were conferred the authority to do so. And this is the case where separate entities of authority are different from ideas or movements per se. Now all this conflict between the right to amend and the reaction to feedback doesnt arise here at all.
Even if this werent the case, how does the question you have posed arise at all? First, the question arises from the presumption that the guarantee of the right to burn is opposite to not being allowed to burn it which it definitely is not. By rejecting the right to burn it, you can burn it still, which is not the same as exercising your right to burn it. The whole confusion in your question is in justopoxing the flag to a position form where it serves as the only target through which you express your desire to keep or reject your freedom. The flag just fills a non state and when it vanishes you create and fill something in that non space.
The next problem with your question is in its relation to the first statement. What do you mean by "representation of a right"? And how does the destruction of such a representation affect the right itself? Try answering the above question without bringing in "legitimacy".
Next, using a near approximation to this and assuming a constitutional amendment or a referendum problem to be similar to this, do you realise that the act of destruction towards a symbol means something more than the exercise of just one of the rights conferred( if you wish to call so),which here is the right to destroy. This is particularly significant because the need to protect is stressed implicitly in the question without being hinted that it may exactly be the opposite to why you might want to exercise the right to burn it. In short,you dont burn the flag just because you have the right to,and if you do that the need overrides your need to protect it. You loose your right only after you destroy it by which time your need to destroy it doesnt exist and presumably because the flag itslef isnt there, there is no need for the right to destroy it and hence the need to protect it ad infinitum. ( i guess this sounds clear)
And if this wasnt the essence of the question, then it falls flat as a silly syllogism. Even at the level of a syllogism, it has serious cause and effect inconsistencies.
P.S: Assume the referendum problem as one where a referendum is being conduted to decide whether one has the right to use referendums or not.( or something similar)
The answers i have given responds to several flaws in your question and while some arent necessarily related to providing a logical answer to the question about "the freedom to reject freedom", some definitely are.
That was a premeditated response from me: [[The American flag being an entity of its own doesnt mean that it doesnt symbolise anything.( From where in the world did you derive this?)]] well, what then was the point of the entity question at all. Whether the flag is an entity on its own or not has no bearing on my question as long as we are in agreement that it symbolizes something. now what is that something...
[[how do you make the assertion that the american flag represents your right to burn it?]] i did not say it represents ONLY that, if thats where you are getting at. Now, what exactly it represents is the question. You must ve easily seen that I actually derive that representation from the question that follows itself and hence the purpose of deriving it (its a little more than circular argument). And it is true in the context that living under that flag guarantees you absolute freedom of expression, including, symbolic acts of expression.
[[Entities which derive legitimacy through whatever democratic means that exists then, continue to judge the legitimacy of and the need for their existence within the framework they evolve after they were conferred the authority to do so. And this is the case where separate entities of authority are different from ideas or movements per se. Now all this conflict between the right to amend and the reaction to feedback doesnt arise here at all.]] can you explain how this is? By burning the flag, one might not exactly be voicing his protest against the legitimacy of the entity, rather, might be voicing his opinion against the means itself which give it legitimacy. In that case, though allowing that person to perform his actions would be abiding by the means. But what if those means as a whole turn against themselves?
[[By rejecting the right to burn it, you can burn it still, which is not the same as exercising your right to burn it.]] I never said anything about CAN or CANNOT. nevertheless, if it is not exercising the right to burn, what is it? (that's a genuine question and not an incitement)
[[The whole confusion in your question is in justopoxing the flag to a position form where it serves as the only target through which you express your desire to keep or reject your freedom. The flag just fills a non state and when it vanishes you create and fill something in that non space.]] In that case, my questions moves to all that 'something' which fills that 'non space'
[[The next problem with your question is in its relation to the first statement. What do you mean by "representation of a right"? And how does the destruction of such a representation affect the right itself? Try answering the above question without bringing in "legitimacy".]] Of course the right is not affected... even after burning it, the Bill of Rights is preserved, thats exactly what the Supreme Court holds to be true. My question, I guess, is the same as it has been pointed out at multiple areas in your comment- is my burning it as a way of exercising my right, a rejection or an exercising of my right (vice versa); is there a third way out and if not, and does one affect the other. And is my protecting it, protecting or destroying my right. I guess the latter is far easier to answer.
[[Next, using a near approximation to this and assuming a constitutional amendment or a referendum problem to be similar to this, do you realise that the act of destruction towards a symbol means something more than the exercise of just one of the rights conferred( if you wish to call so),which here is the right to destroy.]] is this a question?
[[This is particularly significant because the need to protect is stressed implicitly in the question without being hinted that it may exactly be the opposite to why you might want to exercise the right to burn it. In short,you dont burn the flag just because you have the right to,and if you do that the need overrides your need to protect it. You loose your right only after you destroy it by which time your need to destroy it doesnt exist and presumably because the flag itslef isnt there, there is no need for the right to destroy it and hence the need to protect it ad infinitum. ( i guess this sounds clear)]] no actually it does not. if i wanted to burn the flag, solely to exercise my right to burn it, are you implying i loose the right as soon as i'm done? And how does my need to destroy cease to exist with it? i could still want to destroy anything else, which guarantees me the right to freedom of expression.
[[And if this wasnt the essence of the question, then it falls flat as a silly syllogism. Even at the level of a syllogism, it has serious cause and effect inconsistencies.]] well, do you still think it is? if so, are the inconsistencies the source of ambiguity? ;)
[[P.S: Assume the referendum problem as one where a referendum is being conduted to decide whether one has the right to use referendums or not.( or something similar)]] thats exactly my point, can the democratic means which you mentioned earlier derive their legitimacy from something else, or do they give everything else their legitimacy? I guess it comes back to that 'freedom to reject freedom' point you made (succinctly, if i may say so), which might, i say with caution, be interpreted by people at the other end of the spectrum as 'freedom to reject the authority which gives freedom'. my next post will explore, very loosely, this aspect.
Post a Comment