Mexicans fly their flag above the United States' flag

[joeyforpresident]

CNHT, thanks. You're the only one it seems like who has (publicly) backed me on a few things, but the bile that was the "grow up" part from Tom Sawyer didn't make sense. So just because I'm 25 that means I'm somehow immature when it relates to speaking out on an issue I feel is important?

Fine. When I get to New Hampshire, I'll fly a Texas flag right above the Granite State one and see how the locals like that.

Tom Sawyer, thanks but I find myself pretty politically astute for my age.

[CNHT]

CNHT, thanks. You're the only one it seems like who has (publicly) backed me on a few things, but the bile that was the "grow up" part from Tom Sawyer didn't make sense. So just because I'm 25 that means I'm somehow immature when it relates to speaking out on an issue I feel is important?

No it does not make sense.

Fine. When I get to New Hampshire, I'll fly a Texas flag right above the Granite State one and see how the locals like that. 

It would only be offensive if Texas were being violent and agressive and threatening to NH. Since it isn't a symbol of anything like that, no one would care I am sure! If I had a vertical flagpole (and not just the one that sticks out over my garage) I would probably fly the Gadsden to symbolize personal sovereignty first, over the American flag. Still that does not denote violence so I'm sure no one would care....

There are people who hate us in the US simply because we have more freedoms than they do -- our women are free to show their bellybuttons for example while theirs cannot even show the bottom half of their face. It's their religion and they claim their 'bible' tells them that and thus they feel the need to teach their 3 year olds to grow up and kill all of us just because they don't approve of our socially 'free' lifestyle. When they say it and do it, I take them seriously. So be it when they symbolize it, whether it be through the racist songs that are taught to the mere babies in school or what the soldiers are taught in their army.

When people here are suggesting that if they do not approve of what our gov't is doing, therefore it is OK to steal or hurt the people under that gov't, they sanction violence.

It is makes no sense and is rather scary. I fear them equally. Someone was comparing the extremists to fundamentalists...but I have not ever heard fundamentalists talk like that or teach their children to hurt others.

This is not about that flag or any flag, or any piece of cloth. It is not and should not ever be illegal to fly a flag.

However, as in my earlier analogy, if I knew I was flying a certain flag meant something more, then I would have to expect a reaction from those it threatened.

If this were 1948, and you wore a white sheet and burned a cross on my lawn, I would have been extremely afraid because of what it meant. It wasn't ever  illegal to wear sheets though was it? It isn't now either. But some might still recoil!

As far as sovereignty goes, I don't know why anyone would think it means 'nationalism' but it doesn't. It just means the right to govern oneself or one's country without interference from outside. Likewise if they don't think 'open borders' and 'no US gov't' means 'one-world', then  what does it mean? One-world gov't is a philosophy espoused by many and it's only a 'name' if you think it's detrimental. But no one ever explains how they can be opposed to one world and for no sovereignty. I should think they are mutually exclusive.

You are not immature to think whatever you wish about flags. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it, and so am I no matter how many names you are called.

(As if calling me a right wing nationalist is going to upset me anyway?)

Once someone has started calling you names, they have already lost the argument. I am proud of the way you did not lose your temper.

I have seen others your age lose it and start whole threads with name calling in the title. I'm glad you kept your cool and stuck with your ideas instead.

[eques]

People talk about the sovereignty of the nation, but the problem is that national sovereignty isn't legitimate and can only lead to the annihilation of individual rights.

That has to be the dumbest thing I ever read. Sovereignty is not legitimate? So who then you do hope the US falls to? Do you think it is just going to lie fallow and not be taken over by 'someone' or 'something'?

I have no idea what you think sovereignty means, because God knows what they teach kids in schools these days. It looks to me like they have done a thorough anti-American brainswashing on them. It simply means we have the right to govern ourselves without interference from other countries and between the UN and land rights groups, we are losing it fast.

It's funny that you talk about name-calling after posting what I've quoted above.

Did you even read my post?

I said that "national sovereignty" isn't legitimate.  I didn't say "United States sovereignty" or "Mexican sovereignty" or "the Iroquois nation sovereignty."  I said that "national sovereignty" isn't legitimate and then I went on to talk about "individual sovereignty."

You cite the definition of sovereignty as, "the right to govern ourselves without interference from other countries."  I would alter that slightly to read, "the right to govern ourselves as individuals without interference."

Your post actually surprised me, for I would expect that you would appreciate the need to beat back the constant encroachment of government at all levels on our individual freedoms.  I'm chalking it up as a misunderstanding, unless you can do better than "that's the dumbest thing I ever heard."

[Lloyd Danforth]

I'm guessing that except for, possibly,  putting one word in front of another and punctuation, Eques didn't pick up any of this in school

[Lloyd Danforth]

CNHT, thanks. You're the only one it seems like who has (publicly) backed me on a few things, but the bile that was the "grow up" part from Tom Sawyer didn't make sense. So just because I'm 25 that means I'm somehow immature when it relates to speaking out on an issue I feel is important?

Fine. When I get to New Hampshire, I'll fly a Texas flag right above the Granite State one and see how the locals like that.

Tom Sawyer, thanks but I find myself pretty politically astute for my age.

More's the tragedy

[CNHT]

If you fly a Texas flag above a NH flag, you're right, some locals might not like it. Some, like me, won't care.  That doesn't mean there should be a law against it, as some have suggested in this thread.

An upside-down flag is supposed to represent distress, and when people in AMERICA (the supposed land of the free) have a problem with what flags are flown, especially to the point of making it illegal, then the American flag in that picture, is indeed in the right position.

Personally, I don't like the American flag, and don't consider myself an "American." I'm just a person who happened to come out of my mother's womb on this plot of land.

Sad for you. Why don't you move then?
No one here suggested it be illegal to fly a flag, least I did not.

And I disagree with you Eques -- the sovereignty of a COUNTRY is its ability to self-govern without interference of another country or several other countries such as the UN. Personal sovereignty was not even being discussed.

[eques]

And I disagree with you Eques -- the sovereignty of a COUNTRY is its ability to self-govern without interference of another country or several other countries such as the UN. Personal sovereignty was not even being discussed.

Your response says nothing about whether national sovereignty is legitimate.  Yes, national sovereignty would include the requirement that other countries do not interfere within a given country's rule (something the United States government and other powerful governments throughout history have had absolutely no respect for).

What I am saying is that national sovereignty isn't a legitimate concept.  If it isn't legitimate, then all the trappings of national sovereignty are meaningless.  That includes the governments over our heads and the governments abroad.

I can understand if you think that national sovereignty is legitimate, but so far you haven't offered anything against my view except name-calling and the reiteration of your stance.  If that's all you have to offer, then that's fine.  I can leave it at that, though I would encourage you to carefully reread my original post.

What I find amusing about this whole thing is that I was attempting to compliment your efforts.  Sure, I got whipped in the face for it, but I guess the lesson here is, "Choose your battles wisely."

[joeyforpresident]

Well, the proper position of our flag would be (a) without gold fringes and (b) upside down, because yes, I do believe that we are in distress.

I have not - and would not - advocate the ban of flags or the legislation outlawing the burning of one.

It's like the Communist hammer and sickle. Or the Nazi flag. I know what both groups represent, but I would not seek to "ban" them from flying it -- on their property. When it comes to public places, that's where I draw the line.

The same people who "don't care" about foreign flags being flown on public property would be the first to protest the erecting of a Ten Commandments monument or a Bible verse on city/county-owned banners of some sort.

How ironic.

[Caleb]

The same people who "don't care" about foreign flags being flown on public property would be the first to protest the erecting of a Ten Commandments monument or a Bible verse on city/county-owned banners of some sort.

How ironic.

???  Nah!  I don't care about foreign flags being flown on public property, personally.  But I am not against Scripture verses.  I'll probably recite a few while I'm burning my US flag.

[CNHT]

And I disagree with you Eques -- the sovereignty of a COUNTRY is its ability to self-govern without interference of another country or several other countries such as the UN. Personal sovereignty was not even being discussed.

Your response says nothing about whether national sovereignty is legitimate.  Yes, national sovereignty would include the requirement that other countries do not interfere within a given country's rule (something the United States government and other powerful governments throughout history have had absolutely no respect for).

What I am saying is that national sovereignty isn't a legitimate concept.  If it isn't legitimate, then all the trappings of national sovereignty are meaningless.  That includes the governments over our heads and the governments abroad.

I can understand if you think that national sovereignty is legitimate, but so far you haven't offered anything against my view except name-calling and the reiteration of your stance.  If that's all you have to offer, then that's fine.  I can leave it at that, though I would encourage you to carefully reread my original post.

What I find amusing about this whole thing is that I was attempting to compliment your efforts.  Sure, I got whipped in the face for it, but I guess the lesson here is, "Choose your battles wisely."

I'm not whipping you -- just can't believe you don't think sovereignty of a particular country is legitimate and you have not said why.
National, in this case, meaning 'of a nation'. The sovereignty of, the USA, France, Germany, whoever.
It's a basic concept that all countries follow, at least up until recently when they've allowed the UN to interfere to some degree.
They at least have operated under the guise of sovereignty as the US does.
It is what is 'supposed' to be.

It's like me saying you can't have private property because that property belongs to everyone and everyone should be allowed to pitch a tent on it whether you like it or not.

Therefore to me, no sovereignty for the individual countries = one world.

Explain to me how that is not?? No one has been able to yet...


:whp2:

[Caleb]

Therefore to me, no sovereignty for the individual countries = one world.

Explain to me how that is not?? No one has been able to yet...

Yes, Jane, it IS one world!  But it's one world without big bullies telling people what to do.  It's a world where people do what they want to do, as long as they don't hurt anybody else.  It's *not* one world government (UN style), it's one world without government!

[CNHT]

Therefore to me, no sovereignty for the individual countries = one world.

Explain to me how that is not?? No one has been able to yet...

Yes, Jane, it IS one world!  But it's one world without big bullies telling people what to do.  It's a world where people do what they want to do, as long as they don't hurt anybody else.  It's *not* one world government (UN style), it's one world without government!

Wowee what a concept...how original! Are you SURE you did not pick this up in public school?

Ah yes, been there, done that, in the 60s. It's called the Hippie movement -- but then, you are way too young to remember that failed utopian dream.

John Lennon summed it up in his song "Imagine".

It's a ruse...don't fall for it.

Fortunately most of us grew up to realize that everyone has rights; including the right to have our own countries.

It's true diversity.

I'm sorry you don't recognize that right.

Here is some reading you can do to see what public schools have wrought upon you...

http://www.crossroad.to/Books/YourChildNewAge/YCNA-5.htm

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/4/usnoned.htm

May your chains rest lightly upon you!

PS - You can't seem to get the bullies out of one place, how you gonna get the (worse) bullies out of all the rest of the places? Methinks you ain't really seen bullies, that's what.

Note: Hitler advocated for: "EIN VOLK EIN REICH EIN FUHRER"

[Rosie the Riveter]

 

[eques]

Explain to me how that is not?? No one has been able to yet...


:whp2:

Quoting you out of order, but only because I wanted to say that you offered me the challenge, so I'm going to take it up. 

I'm not whipping you -- just can't believe you don't think sovereignty of a particular country is legitimate and you have not said why.

I alluded to the why in my original post:

The sovereignty we should be concerned with is our own individual sovereignty.

and

Otherwise, you're claiming that there's some aspect of yourself that you have relegated to the whims of somebody else.

but I will gladly elaborate. 

This is where I'm starting from: individual sovereignty--that includes you, me, and everybody reading (and not reading) this thread--is the highest sovereignty there is.  Without individual sovereignty, you don't have individual freedom.  That is, if individuals are prevented from ruling themselves, they do not have freedom.

It may be necessary to support the statement that "individual sovereignty is the highest sovereignty there is," but I'm going to continue for now.

National sovereignty necessarily conflicts with individual sovereignty.  The interests of the nation (i.e., the body which makes up the government and its cronies) are not at all the interests of the individual.

You fight against government encroachment upon individual sovereignty, or, the encroachment of national sovereignty upon individual sovereignty.  I think that you recognize that they are fundamentally at odds with each other.

Now comes the question of the legitimacy of national sovereignty.  If an individual is sovereign, how is it possible that another entity can claim sovereignty in any way over that individual?  That is, how can a nation claim the right to rule over individuals?  How can any entity claim the right to rule over individuals?

A nation's government is only made up of individuals.  Any government, whether it be 5 million local governments or one monolithic world government, is consisted of individuals acting under the auspices of authority.  How is it that those individuals are able to claim authority over any other individuals if all individuals are sovereign in their own right?

The short answer to that question is that they aren't, because those individuals under government cannot legitimately claim authority over anybody but themselves.

Furthermore, it is not possible for you to yield your sovereignty as you are sovereign whether you accept it or not.  Nobody can live your life for you, no matter how hard they try.

That's how I come to the conclusion that nations do not have legitimate sovereignty.

Now, that absolutely does not mean that one cannot love the land they live in... and the question of private property is another one altogether, one that has been discussed by other people willing to devote considerable time and thought to the question.

National, in this case, meaning 'of a nation'. The sovereignty of, the USA, France, Germany, whoever.
It's a basic concept that all countries follow, at least up until recently when they've allowed the UN to interfere to some degree.
They at least have operated under the guise of sovereignty as the US does.
It is what is 'supposed' to be.

It's like me saying you can't have private property because that property belongs to everyone and everyone should be allowed to pitch a tent on it whether you like it or not.

Therefore to me, no sovereignty for the individual countries = one world.

In one sense, no sovereignty for individual nations is equivalent to "one world," but there are a few different ways for "one world" to exist.

One is what you are likely referring to, which is "one world government."  I don't like that any more than you (I probably hate the idea just as much as you, but perhaps for different reasons).  Logistically speaking, one world government would be choked with bureaucracy, though technology is making it much easier to gather everybody under one "roof."  This is most probably what the world is ultimately heading towards--the consolidation of power from "the masses" into the hands of "the few"--unless people start waking up.  That won't happen unless there are others to sound the alarms.

An alternative is that there is no "world government," but there are no "national governments," either.  In this version of "one world," individuals are free to trade with others, free to assemble and disassemble, free to do whatever their hearts desire as long as it does not involve the violation of anybody else's sovereignty.

The agglomeration of power may not be a zero sum game, but the power currently held by the governments of the world is power that is at least yielded by the people of the world.

I have a feeling that you're so close to this, Jane, because I've seen you write about government encroachment on our lives with such vitality (one example that comes to mind is the funding of education).

And just so I don't have you at a disadvantage, my name is James. 

[eques]

Here is some reading you can do to see what public schools have wrought upon you...

Just so you're aware (not that it should matter), I did not attend public school.

PS - You can't seem to get the bullies out of one place, how you gonna get the (worse) bullies out of all the rest of the places? Methinks you ain't really seen bullies, that's what.

The United States government has utterly failed to get both the regular bullies and the really bad bullies.  It has even installed and supported a few horrific bullies.

Not having government won't get rid of the bullies, but it'll reduce their chances of causing so much damage by not having the apparatus in place.

Note: Hitler advocated for: "EIN VOLK EIN REICH EIN FUHRER"

Where did Caleb say anything about "one ruler"?

Hitler made use of nationalistic claptrap in order to rise to power and retain it.