Colorado governor defends 'Don't Tread on Me' flag after student told to remove patch

YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldbanned from sitebanned from site to politics @lemmy.world – 124 points –
Colorado governor defends 'Don't Tread on Me' flag after student told to remove patch
usatoday.com

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4249593

Democratic Gov. Jared Polis called the Gadsden flag 'a proud symbol of the American revolution' after a a Colorado student was told to remove a patch of the "Don't Tread on Me" flag from his backpack.

136

You are viewing a single comment

The emphasis is on "Me"

Yeah. It's not an expression of mutual defense, it's an expression of self defense only.

It doesn't say "Don't tread on my neighbor."

It doesn't say "I won't tread on you." Snakes conveniently don't wear boots.

Hell, it doesn't even say "I'll stick up for my neighbor after they defend themselves from you."

It could be as simple as "Don't Tread on Us" but it's not. To be fair, the wording doesn't necessarily imply a selfish attitude, but the ones waving a flag definitely do,

There is nothing inherently oppressive about saying "Don't tread on me.". Individual liberty does not beget an oppressive structure within the collective. An individual should not stand behind the flag in good conscience if the believe that their liberties trump those of others.

Being individually free does not necessitate an oppressive structure within the collective -- if all individuals are free, then the collective must also be free.

This seems like it should be true, but unfortunately game theory shows that it is not, due to coordination problems. It's possible for everyone to have individual free choice in their actions, and yet the collective to be incapable of making the choice that everyone would individually prefer it to make. The elementary example of this is the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Interestingly, real humans turn out to be better at resolving coordination problems than a purely selfish algorithm is.

It’s possible for everyone to have individual free choice in their actions, and yet the collective to be incapable of making the choice that everyone would individually prefer it to make

The entire point of individualism is that it is opposed to collectivism.

Please consider reading for comprehension of whole sentences or paragraphs, rather than just recognizing single words. The above comment isn't about individualism vs. collectivism as doctrines.

Your original point is fundamentally flawed, though. The individual has no freedom of choice if the collective is making decisions for the individual. I am also not understanding how this is analogous to the prisoner's dilemma.

You still seem to be looking to have an "individualism vs. collectivism" fight that isn't happening here, and it seems to be that you're reading a bunch of extra stuff into my words that I didn't actually write there. I think we're done here. I do think you would do well to understand what a coordination problem is.

I think we’re done here.

I would very much like to understand where my misinterpretations are. I aspire to improve my conversational skills. I apologize if I have offended you in some way -- offense is not my intent.

I do think you would do well to understand what a coordination problem is.

Would you mind elaborating?

One must still not forget that their liberties do not trump the liberties of others. Freedom is something we enjoy as a collective. If there is inequality in this then the collective is no longer free, but is, instead, oppressive.

In short, the Gadsden flag is not about one being free to trample on the rights of others, but, instead, upholding the freedoms of the collective by respecting the liberties of each unique individual. Inequality in freedom is oppression.