THE MEXICAN FLAG.

by Jack VanNoord

To celebrate Mexico’s Independence Day Guadalupe Perez flew the Mexican flag in her front yard.  Problem is, she flew it ABOVE the American flag.  In response, Carpentersville officials are considering an ordinance so that they can fine the likes of Ms. Perez. 

I agree with village officials that Ms. Perez shouldn’t fly the Mexican flag above the American Flag.  It’s highly offensive and socially unacceptable.  But passing a law isn’t necessary or appropriate.   The law is intended for a very specific purpose.  Assault, murder, theft, failure to uphold my end of a contract; these are grievances that the law is equipped to redress.  But offended sensibilities?  It is not. 

Without having to resort to legislation, her family, friends and neighbors have ways of getting Perez to change her habits.  Education, reason, humor, guilt --even ostracizing her if they find her behavior egregious enough-- would be more appropriate.  

Unfortunately, words like “shame,” “passing judgment” and “ostracize” have become dirty words in our current cultural climate.  So instead, government has become the default tool of choice as we negotiate our relations with one another.  If someone uses a tone of voice we don’t like, tells a joke we find offensive or doesn’t invite us into their group with open arms, our response is to unleash the law upon them.  

All around us see examples of people using the law against their neighbor --not to punish theft, assault or fraud-- but in order to change their neighbors behavior to suit their liking. 

For example, we currently have a battle percolating in the American workplace between employees with children and those without.  Rather than negotiating arrangements that are mutually agreeable to themselves and their bosses, employees with families have used the law to secured for themselves special legislation. Their childless colleagues have been left holding the short end of the stick.  Resentment, conflict and more litigation have ensued. 

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court almost ended our freedom of association this summer. James Dale wanted to be a Scout leader. The Scouts said “No, thanks.”  So he sued.  The high court came with in ONE VOTE of denying the Boy Scout’s the ability to decide who will and who won’t serve as troop leaders.

For example, we have a healthcare quagmire in this country not for lack of willing medical providers.  But, because government has NOT seen fit to allow US to negotiate the terms of our health care with our healthcare providers.  Thirty years of government intervention, mandates and restrictions have made our medical coverage worse; not better. 

Somebody didn’t hire you for reasons you don’t like?  Take them to court.  Somebody didn’t sell you the services you wanted at the price you wanted ?  File a suit.  Somebody exercising her freedom of speech by flying a flag in a way that offends you?  Pass an ordinance. 

But government is not our daddy here to reprimand those who don’t behave in ways that you would prefer.   

When it comes to conflicting ideas about who we want to be our troop leaders, what is appropriate speech or what is the best combinations of requirements and rewards for employment, government should step aside.  Instead of picking society’s winners and losers, those who govern should allow various ideas and behaviors to compete in the open marketplace.  Through the natural process of social evolution, you and I will decide which ones to encourage and tolerate.  And which ones to not. 

We will all be better off when we learn how limit the law to the purpose for which it was intended. 

As for Ms. Perez and her wayward flag-flying habits:  “I didn’t see why it was such a big deal.  I know now.  I won’t put up the American flag [beneath the Mexican flag].”  Mission accomplished.  No ordinance needed. 

11-22-2000

Written by Jack VanNoord - West Dundee.