One Man’s Flag, Another Man’s Poison

The following excerpt and link to article is a follow-up to the story I commented on here.

Removal of straight flag discrimination: creator https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBOMNvB?m=en-ca&referrerID=InAppShare

There’s an old lesson to be remembered here. It’s not the one about not being able to please (or to “fool”) everyone. The lesson is that the use of coercive force necessarily leads to continuous conflict.

What does all that mean? Don’t use coercive force to get your own way is the answer and moral imperative. Even the appeal to a small village council to fly a “rainbow flag” is force because there is an element of political power required to accomplish the effect desired by a specially interested collective.

One of the consequences of resorting to coercive force is that other individuals resent it. Small wonder: it’s evil. So it’s no surprise that Mr. Bishop and his conjured “straight-pride” flag have come to the fight with yet another version of “tit for tat.”

So now there are two (at least) parties in conflict over a couple of stupid flags! Flags represent collectives of some description, be it a nation, an army, a pirate ship or some primitive tribe (which might use totems, piles of stones, runes, animal hides or other mystical symbols rather than flags.)

If our governments, regardless of hierarchy, were to orient themselves to defending the rights of the individual rather than any collective there would be no political conflict. There are no conflicts of men’s interests if they are left to the individuals involved to agree or disagree, provided our governments protect our rights to self-express in the market of ideas.

When two parties agree to a trade of values, material or spiritual, both gain. When they disagree to an exchange of values, each simply goes his own way. Neither has the coercive force of government to enforce his particular vision of right or wrong.

Edward’s Post

2 thoughts on “One Man’s Flag, Another Man’s Poison

    1. With respect, your cryptic observation is either lacking in clarity or misses the point I was making about disagreement or conflict in the context of political power, i.e., physical force.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s