08 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyserJust as Montesquieu wrote, "When the laws have ceased to be executed, as this can come form the corruption of the republic, the state is already lost."
The only part of government that would need to upsize is the law enforcement and court systems if the populace started breaking laws at a higher rate. You know full well that the expanding government as we see today has nothing to do with that. The immorality of government within itself is driving this because the laws have ceased to be executed. The Logan Act is a good example of this.
Other examples include Obama ignoring the War Powers Act in Libya and ignoring the federal immigration laws and writing Executive Orders to oppose them etc.
In an immoral state, all one would have to do is make everything illegal, and then pick and choose who you wish to go after. Case in point is the guy who made the film about Mohammad that caused riots in the Middle East. The Obama administration arrested him on the charge of breaking his parol. Had he not made the films this never would have happened.
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by JS357http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1443934/Logan-Act
The Logan act was passed in 1799. If it is an example of "the immorality of government in itself", the immorality was practically built-in to the US govt.
It doesn't cover actions by govt, it deals with actions by non-govt persons. Please explain your view.
It states any citizen of the United States, not just civilians. If a government official secretly has meetings with foreign entities it is not authorized. Secret as in no one else in the government is in the know. In the conclusion of this link it explains that there hasn't been a prosecution under the Logan Act. We have a very active foreign relations built into the government but it has to authorized by the government. Couldn't have some senator going to Russia and negotiating with them about anything that can negatively impact our country in any way in secret. There have been many legal references to it but never prosecution. I think Nixon was one example on the link. Many believe Obama and Clinton violated it at a bilderberg conference.
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by whodeyHow does arresting someone for violating his parole serve - to your way of thinking - as a "case in point" that illustrates either "an immoral state" or "making everything illegal"?
In an immoral state, all one would have to do is make everything illegal, and then pick and choose who you wish to go after. Case in point is the guy who made the film about Mohammad that caused riots in the Middle East. The Obama administration arrested him on the charge of breaking his parol. Had he not made the films this never would have happened.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by joe beyserOK but I just don't see it as a very good example of "the immorality of government in itself".
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1443934/Logan-Act
It states any citizen of the United States, not just civilians. If a government official secretly has meetings with foreign entities it is not authorized. Secret as in no one else in the government is in the know. In the conclusion of this link it explains that there hasn't been a prosecution under the Loga ...[text shortened]... ne example on the link. Many believe Obama and Clinton violated it at a bilderberg conference.
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFMy only point here is that you can create a myraid of laws and simply choose to enforce the ones you wish based upon whom you wish to target. Case in point is Al Capone. They got him on tax evasion.
How does arresting someone for violating his parole serve - to your way of thinking - as a "case in point" that illustrates either "an immoral state" or "making everything illegal"?
I contend that had the man in question never made the movie in question, he would not have been arrested for violating his parol.
08 Oct 12
1 edit
I've noticed over the years that democracy has been packaged as a type of "good" morality in and of itself. However, if the people have no morality,what sorts of people will they be voting for? Looking at the Palestinians, for example, we see a people raised on hate and who send their children out into the streets to martyre themselves, and then elected a terrorist organization to represent them. I contend that such a corrupt people would be better off with despotism. According to the formula of greater government is needed to curb greater corruption, I think that it is the best fit.
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by whodeyDo you contend that he shouldn't have been arrested for his parole violation even though it had come to light? You still haven't explained why you think his case demonstrates "an immoral state" or a government "making everything illegal".
I contend that had the man in question never made the movie in question, he would not have been arrested for violating his parol.
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by whodeyHow is it you think despotism curbs corruption?
I've noticed over the years that democracy has been packaged as a type of "good" morality in and of itself. However, if the people have no morality,what sorts of people will they be voting for? Looking at the Palestinians, for example, we see a people raised on hate and who send their children out into the streets to martyre themselves, and then elected a t ...[text shortened]... of greater government is needed to curb greater corruption, I think that it is the best fit.
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFFrom what I heard, he violated his parol by surfing the web.
Do you contend that he shouldn't have been arrested for his parole violation even though it had come to light? You still haven't explained why you think his case demonstrates "an immoral state" or a government "making everything illegal".
Whatever. What can you say, rules are rules, right FMF?
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFIf a society were wicked, they would supposidly choose wicked leaders. Despotism would then be a form of constraint. Another way to look at it would be putting them in a police state. It would be a form of jail.
How is it you think despotism curbs corruption?
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by whodeyThis doesn't answer the question "How is it you think despotism curbs corruption?" How does despotism act as a "constraint" on corruption?
If a society were wicked, they would supposidly choose wicked leaders. Despotism would then be a form of constraint. Another way to look at it would be putting them in a police state. It would be a form of jail.
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFIt comes from my previous premise in that a lack of virtue demands increased governmental control. For example, if the people rioted and became violent, then Marshall law would not be far behind.
This doesn't answer the question "How is it you think despotism curbs corruption?" How does despotism act as a "constraint" on corruption?
08 Oct 12
Originally posted by whodeyDo you have examples of how despotism curbs corruption, as you claim?
It comes from my previous premise in that a lack of virtue demands increased governmental control. For example, if the people rioted and became violent, then Marshall law would not be far behind.