Joseph Hornick flew a “Trump - Make America Great Again!” flag on his property only to have the police show up at his door and instruct him to remove it. It turns out a local city ordinance makes it illegal to post political signs more than thirty days before an election, so if Hornick continues to let his Trump flag fly, he could end up with a $2,000 fine, a 90 day stint in jail or both.
Now, I’m no Trump fan, but I am a fan of free speech, and telling someone they cannot fly a flag or post a sign in favor of a certain political candidate makes a mockery of our fundamental American right to speak our mind.
Though a real problem, laws like this always make me roll my eyes for the regulations are so arbitrary. We are supposed to believe that flying a flag that supports Trump is a menace to society that must be stopped with the full force of law, and yet the same guy who is banned from flying a flag in his local neighborhood can go online and tell the entire world, “Trump will make America great again!” without consequence. We are told political signs are bad and must be stopped, but there’s no problem with people wearing T-shirts supporting Trump, so are we to believe that a stationary political message is somehow more threatening than a mobile political message? This local township is telling us that it’s a travesty of justice to post a political sign thirty-one days before an election, but thirty days before an election, the exact same act is a wonderful part of the electoral process? What nonsense!
I think most people would agree that this law serves no purpose, and yet this is just a single example of nonsensical restrictions on the election process. There are many equally arbitrary laws which bizarrely win popular support. Why is it perfectly okay to give a political candidate $2,700 and yet completely illegal to give the candidate $2,700.01? I personally find it difficult to imagine how a single penny could pose that much of a threat to the nation. We are supposed to believe it’s totally wrong to give a dime over $2,700 to a political candidate, yet it’s perfectly okay to give an additional $5,000 to a political party or a PAC (Political Action Committee) that in turn will give a candidate that money. You can even give an unlimited amount of money to a Super PAC which will not give the money directly to the candidate but will spend every cent on ads and other political tools designed to get a single candidate elected. How does any of this make sense?
Why have so many Americans been convinced that attempts to influence the political system are bad? Isn’t the entire point of a representative government encapsulated in the idea that citizens can influence the political landscape?
Here’s my crazy idea. People should be able to do what they choose with what is theirs. Is it your property? Then fly whatever flag you want to fly. Is it your money? Then give it to whomever you darn well please.
How could a rational person come to any other conclusion?
No comments:
Post a Comment