Flags, Anthems, and First Allegiances

Love ya, Mises, but symbols are useful. (DN 2.21)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16 | 2.17 | 2.XX | 2.18 | 2.19 | 2.20 | 2.21

---

Chapter 2.21
Wrapping up Chapter 2: Symbols

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims.
—R. Buckminster Fuller

Occasionally throughout this work, I have posed a question: are principles alone enough to unite us?

We feel strongly about our rights and freedom. We are angered by serial violations of our consent—violations we are told we must simply sit down, shut up, and take. But is that enough to stir the soul? To engender a feeling that we are all part of a shared endeavor?

There are a variety of ingredients, beyond the principles alone, that can and will create such a feeling. Some we will discuss in upcoming chapters. Others will arise organically. A few might even come along that are surprising and unexpected.

Right now, I want to begin a preliminary discussion of just one: symbols.

Of course, we do not want to get too far ahead of ourselves. You know how eighth graders will form a band and start planning the cover art for their first album before they’ve even learned to play their instruments? Yeah…we don’t want to be like that. So this really will be just preliminary.

Do we need symbols?

The great Ludwig von Mises believed that a classical liberal ought to deem symbols unnecessary and undesirable:

No sect and no political party has believed that it could afford to forgo advancing its cause by appealing to men’s senses. Rhetorical bombast, music and song resound, banners wave, flowers and colors serve as symbols, and the leaders seek to attach their followers to their own person. Liberalism has nothing to do with all this. It has no party flower and no party color, no party song and no party idols, no symbols and no slogans. It has the substance and the arguments. These must lead it to victory.¹

At one level of analysis, Mises’ point make sense. Flags, anthems, slogans, colors, and other symbols are part of the trappings of the state—from ancient empires to medieval monarchies to modern democracies. Yes, they are associated with feelings of unity and shared identity, but they are also symbols of nationalism and conquest. And nationalism and conquest are obviously not how we roll.

For classical liberals opposing the state from within the state, Mises’ view makes some sense. In such a circumstance, “the substance and the arguments” really must be the focus. But does it make sense for classical liberals forming a new nation based on those selfsame arguments and principles?

Needless to say, Mises is a giant on whose shoulders we all sit. Yet I must confess that the first time I read this passage, I disagreed with it. And this was long before I had contemplated anything like a distributed nation.

Symbols are powerful. Music stirs the soul. Mises was also speaking like the philosopher he was, and the philosopher in me entirely agrees. The principles must come first. But philosophy alone can also leave people feeling cold and wanting more.

Think about the impact that symbols and music had on the movements of the 1960s. You do not have to agree with those movements to acknowledge the powerful ways in which symbology, art, and music were woven into them.

When you hear the opening notes of “Fortunate Son” by Creedence Clearwater Revival, you instantly think of opposition to the Vietnam War and the draft. The peace symbol remains iconic to this day. My first thought when reading this passage from Mises was that he was denying to classical liberals a powerful tool.

Since I began contemplating the distributed nation, that conviction has only strengthened. I believe we would benefit from having some music and symbols of our own.

Music sets the soul alight. Wouldn’t you enjoy hearing music that both stirs your soul and speaks to things in which you believe?

And if we are joined together with others in a nation built upon those things, wouldn’t we like to share some symbols in common? An easy way of identifying ourselves to each other, when we wish to do so? Something to call our own. A symbol.

Perhaps even a flag.

And how about an anthem? (Heck, how about just a better tradition of classical-liberal protest music? We are seriously missing the boat on that front.)

Flags and first allegiances

“I pledge allegiance to the flag…”

No.

No no no.

The years surrounding the turn of the century in America were dominated by a curious combination of leftism and rabid, jingoistic nationalism. Uncle Sam. The Pledge of Allegiance (written by a committed socialist). One-hundred-percent Americanism. Eugenics. It’s all part of a toxic brew from which leftists today would recoil in horror.² But it was just part of the American cake at the time.

Many of us, at some point in our lives, deemed the Pledge to be a good thing. (Some perhaps still do.) I certainly did, back when I was more reflexively patriotic. Then I started thinking it through…

• I am certainly not going to pledge allegiance to any republic, since republics are nonconsensual impositions of government violence (and the violence of other people’s votes).

• Indivisible? Why? Why must the borders of a nation forever remain the same? Why is it okay for it to get bigger, but never to get smaller? Even mentioning the notion of any kind of peaceable breakup is deemed by some to be literal treason. Why? I don’t want any part of that vibe.

• Liberty and justice are obviously great, but once you realize that involuntary governance is not liberty, those words too ring hollow.

I am not pledging allegiance to any flag, nor would I expect you to do so.

The distributed nation’s first allegiance is to the principles of natural law and the moral instructions that so clearly emanate therefrom. Do you notice that the Declaration of Independence mentions “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” but the Constitution does not?

The distributed nation actually takes that commitment seriously. Any nation that fails to do so will end up right where we are now. Any individual who fails to do so will end up being cruel or a criminal. Natural law comes first.

You do not pledge allegiance to the distributed nation. The distributed nation pledges its allegiance to you. To your rights and freedom, in the sovereign space in which you dwell.

Any flag we have will symbolize that commitment.

A flag does not have to be a symbol of obedience. It can also be a declaration.

Anthems and music

Music, film, and visual arts are a tough not to crack. In order for art to be good, it generally must be organic. Excessive contrivance tends to be painfully obvious, and purpose-built art is often quite contrived. Art with a message is fine, but the message must be woven into good art. The art must come first.

For a host of reasons we can discuss at a later time, classical liberals are always playing catch-up when it comes to artistic expression. (And sentiments like Mises’ above certainly don’t help.) Playing catch-up usually means rushing, and rushing to produce message-art tends to result in sub-par art.

We don’t want that.

It would be great for classical liberals to develop a tradition of music. Protest music. Folk music. Music that expresses our beliefs and passions. But it has to happen organically, with the messages woven into good art. (Also—and this is very important—we must support such music and tell each other about it when it happens!)

Similarly, if the distributed nation were ever to have an anthem, it would need to be good. I have toyed with a few ideas, based on a chord progression and melody I wrote with a friend many years ago. Or maybe something else will come along. I am open, and there’s no rush. Right now, we have bigger fish to fry.

Planting the seed

Colors, symbols, flowers, slogans. Art. Music. Flags.³ All of this can and will be discussed down the road. There is also the question of names: what are we going to call our nation? That too can wait for a little while.

For now, I just wanted to make the categorical statement (with great respect to Mises) that symbols and art are valuable. Yes, the principles—the “substance and the arguments”—are our foundation. But it is also good and right that we should have some symbols too.

This is the end of chapter 2. We have much more to discuss. But if you believe in these principles—if, like us, that is where your first allegiance lies—then perhaps our distributed nation has already begun to form, and you are a part of it.

The world-spanning religions and political movements of today began with a handful of people meeting by candlelight. Everything starts somewhere. Everything starts small and grows. Someone must plant the seed from which the mighty tree grows.

That someone is us. And a seed planted in the soil of natural law will grow mighty indeed.

Symbols can have a powerful effect among a people—inspiring a feeling of camaraderie and togetherness. But they also send an external message.

If we were to create a flag, for example, it would serve as a visual declaration:

We are not subject to any allegiances save those we have explicitly chosen.

We choose this. We choose to be the architects of our own lives, and to unite with others who wish to do the same.

Let the King Georges of today read that without their spectacles.

1. von Mises, Ludwig. Chapter 5, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition. 1927. Reprint, Online Library of Liberty, 1962. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/greaves-liberalism-the-classical-tradition-1927-lf-ed.

2. Or would they?

3. Heck, do you want to have our own language? That can be arranged. I started creating a constructed language back in the early 80s, and I have been slowly nibbling at the project ever since. (It began with my 8th/9th grade frustration with the crazy declension of Latin and endless conjugation in French. Naturally, being an arrogant little child, I figured I could do better. And it has ended up pretty good, if I do say so, in its refined form 40 years later. The grammatical system is simple and easy to learn, yet avoids ambiguity.) Chances are, of course, we’ll just go on speaking the languages we speak. I am just pointing out that we have options. (One cool thing about this language is the fact that it is totally secret. Other than the words for “hair” and “body,” which were suggested by an old girlfriend, no one knows a thing about it. And I strongly suspect that she has long since forgotten those two words.)