3 ms·
Is your argument that "the government could do this immoral thing under the table, so we might as well let them do it over the table"? I'm not sure I buy that
by wyager 10y ago
Is your argument that "the government could do this immoral thing under the table, so we might as well let them do it over the table"?
I'm not sure I buy that line of reasoning. I would rather just say that the government can't legally do this immoral thing, and prosecute the government actors involved if we catch them doing it.
- jdavis703 10y agoThat is indeed my argument. In a democracy anything is possible if the people vote for it. However we need to make the actions of elected officials public. For example while I personally oppose the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, I would've been less angry (and more sad) had it passed through congressional means with an open debate the public was aware of. I also do not think that violating (whether it be through amendments or other actions) the constitution's intent is inherently immoral, as the constitution has little, if any morality built into it.
- meanduck 10y agoIts obvious you and many others here are statists. And its fine if thats how you want to live but I dont. So instead of endless debate on this/UBI/RTBF/etc, we need to work on a (better) framework to decouple land from politics i.e. Secession Protocol.