Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[iceball3]

Just to keep you on your toes.

I never said you had to morally support what the government was doing, only that one should consider it morally ethically wrong to break the laws created by a lawful government.

I really don't see what's so absurd about that.

Bauglir, I thought it a distinction worth making, and I think we've had a nice talk about this. I'm not sure why you think I'm being inflammatory.

Fix'd due to being very narrow in where it refers.
Morals have nothing to do with laws, as they are all personalized. Ethics are incredibly dependent on the society in question, in this case, ours (sort of including those people in several other countries), in which it is ethically wrong to break the law.

[Nikov]

An unlawful government would be one that violates its own notions of rights or responsibilities to the governed, such as having a constitution that forbade a national debt, then ran up a national debt, or one that insisted war could only be declared by an elected body, then was declared by an appointed one, ect.

Basically a government breaking its own rules, or if we want to get fancy, we could go into crazy military coup War of Austrian Succession invading foreign power type scenarios. But I provide examples of the most basic sort.

Its all cool Bauglir and Leaf. Continue talking about how crazy Congress is right now. Bonus points if you tie in some way in which Congress is being lawful or unlawful government.

FakeEdit: When I say moral I mean moral. I don't trust another's ethics any farther than they can bend them.

[Nikov]

Back on topic?

Congress failed to pass a budget before the campaign recess.

What the hell, Congress.

[Zangi]

Back on topic?

Congress failed to pass a budget before the campaign recess.

What the hellBusiness as usual for Congress.

Fixed.

Also, it seems you'll fit right in China or any other regimes that like to control the flow of information, Nikov.  Gotta follow the law of the land ya know.

[RedKing]

I'm kinda with Nikov on this one. Typically, they pass some of the budget resolutions and then pass a band-aid "continuing resolution" to keep paying for shit until they get the rest hammered out. This year they didn't pass ANY of the budget resolutions before skipping town. I think it should be a law that they don't get to go home until the budget is passed, even in an election year. As the incumbents would have the most to lose by being stuck in DC, it would give them an impetus to DO THEIR DAMN JOBS.

Granted, I can already see how this would be used as a political tool with the minority party deliberately obstructing the budget process, because as the predominant challenger party in Congressional elections, it would behoove them to tie up the incumbents as long as possible. You know what? Nevermind. There's no way to fix this that won't be abused by somebody.

[DJ]

Sorry for responding to old posts, but I just saw the whole argument over following the laws. Just because something is a law doesn't make it right, and it's citizens' moral obligation to break bad laws. Blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus if nobody broke laws.

[Nikov]

An unlawful government would be one that violates its own notions of rights or responsibilities to the governed...

Come on, man. Democrats trampled on the rights of their constituents, I don't have to explain why that was unlawful government.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[smigenboger]

Lol I accidentally necroed this thread, responding to an Ooc thread link and not realizing the date on it. For that I apologize.

Anyway, responding to the person who says they won't drink alcohol until 21 because that's the law, and the moral thing to do, I don't feel any pang of moral or nationalistic guilt drinking at 19, considering the law used to be set at 18+, and likely raised due to dimwitted young kids drinking and driving, which is obviously a big mistake to make.

[Nikov]

An unlawful government would be one that violates its own notions of rights or responsibilities to the governed...

Come on, man. Democrats trampled on the rights of their constituents, I don't have to explain why that was unlawful government.

Uhm. When?

From Wikipedia's article on Jim Crow laws;

During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877 federal law provided civil rights protection in the South for "freedmen" — the African Americans who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, white Democrats gradually returned to power in southern states, sometimes as a result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaign. In 1877, a national compromise to gain southern support in the presidential election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn from the South. White Democrats had regained power in every Southern state.[4] The white, Democratic Party Redeemer government that followed the troop withdrawal legislated Jim Crow laws segregating black people from the state's white population.

Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but the establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration and elections more restrictive, with the result that participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease. Starting with Mississippi in 1890, through 1910 the former Confederate states passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements. Grandfather clauses temporarily permitted some illiterate whites to vote. Voter turnout dropped drastically through the South as a result of such measures.

I'm sure we can all agree that's foul play.

[smigenboger]

It's a good thing those Democrats aren't alive to continue that trend.

[Nikov]

Nah, now they just incite class conflict instead of race conflict. [/tonguecheek]

[Earthquake Damage]

I don't see your point.  Are you saying the Democrats are evil?  Are you saying they (would) support the same policies now as they did a century ago?  Are you just rambling?

[RedKing]

Are you saying the Democrats are evil? 
Are you saying they (would) support the same policies now as they did a century ago? 
Are you just rambling?

Third time's a charm.