Against flag burning

In a new essay at Postliberal Order, I argue that burning the flag as an expression of contempt for one’s country is contrary to the virtue of piety, is something we therefore have no right to do under natural law, and may, in principle, therefore be outlawed by the state.  I also argue that the Supreme Court was, in Texas v. Johnson, mistaken in claiming that a right to burn the flag is implied by the U.S. constitution.

John Searle (1932-2025)

Daily Nous has reported that John Searle has died.  Searle was one of the true greats of contemporary philosophy, having made huge and lasting contributions to several of its subdisciplines, but especially to philosophy of mind and philosophy of language.  His work had an enormous influence on me in my undergrad and graduate student years.  His books Minds, Brains, and Science, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, Speech Acts, and The Rediscovery of the Mind were especially formative.  And his uncommonly lucid style was the main model for my own approach to philosophical writing.  I had the pleasure of meeting and talking to him on several occasions, and Steven Postrel and I interviewed him for Reason magazine over twenty-five years ago.

How not to limit free speech

I am by no means a free speech absolutist.  In an article at Postliberal Order a couple of years ago, I set out the natural law position on the issue, noting that the teleology or final cause of our rational and communicative faculties entails not only a broad range of freedom of expression, but also definite limits.  There can be no natural right to expression that is positively contrary to what is good for us given our nature as rational social animals.  However, that by no means entails that just any old limitation on free speech imposed in the name of a good cause is a good idea, or even justifiable in principle.

Thucydides’ times and ours

All of my readers will no doubt have been following the horrific and heartbreaking news of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and its aftermath.  As those who follow me on Twitter/X know, I have had a lot to say about the matter there.  One of Twitter’s advantages over traditional blogging is that it is more conducive to running commentary on unfolding events.  But because some readers of this blog are not on Twitter, it seems appropriate to comment here as well.

When major and shocking events occur, there is, of course, a tendency for people to respond more emotionally than rationally, and to overinterpret their significance.  But it seems to me that two general points can safely be made about the current situation.

Is mandatory vaccination intrinsically wrong?

Florida governor Ron DeSantis and state Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo have announced that they will be ending all mandatory vaccination in the state.  President Trump has criticized them for this, saying that “some vaccines… should be used otherwise some people are going to catch [diseases] and they endanger other people.”  I have long supported DeSantis and have been critical of Trump, but on this issue Trump is right and DeSantis is wrong. 

That is by no means to say that all mandatory vaccinations are defensible.  As I have argued, the Covid shot should never have been mandatory.  But it goes way too far to claim, as Ladapo does, that all mandatory vaccination as such is “immoral” and amounts to “slavery.”  The truth lies in the middle ground position that while there is a moral presumption against a mandate, in some cases that presumption can be overridden and it can be licit for governments to require vaccination.  Sweeping statements of either extreme kind are wrong, and we need to go case by case.