[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

:? It's pointless imo.

Bane_09

I.E why democracy is a failed form of government.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Frank, can you define treason?

Inconsistancy

"treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation" from wikipedia.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution.

If you want to get into specifics then, yes.

However that doesn't contradict my statement or my point.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I do not understand what you are saying. How would a Canadian foreign-aid program for the benefit of US citizens result in a war? Even in the most extreme scenario the only logical war that could lead to would be revolt against the Canadian government by its citizens. Just to clarify, my position is that all welfare spending (including foreign aid) is irrational and therefore a logical government would never demand the funds to provide for such programs.Laihendi

here is where the war part is coming from.

The US government does not want felons to receive this aid,the Canadian government then openly defies the US government and then subverts it's edict.\

Open defiance (by a foreign state) and subversion are grounds for war (albeit a bit shaky)

You already know my views on welfare (I.E citezenship package).

Well are the Canadians doing this without the permission of the US government?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am curious what you think about this idea: What if the Canadian government started a (taxpayer-funded) foreign aid program to provide violent criminals in the United States with food stamps? Would you support/oppose such a program? Please share your thoughts on this.Laihendi

A logical government would simply intercept those funds and use them for their own purposes.

I imagine war would not be out of the question either.

here is where the war part is coming from.

The US government does not want felons to receive this aid,the Canadian government then openly defies the US government and then subverts it's edict.\

Open defiance (by a foreign state) and subversion are grounds for war (albeit a bit shaky)

You already know my views on welfare (I.E citezenship package).

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="mmwmwmmwmwmm"]cant wait to see his next evasion.mmwmwmmwmwmm

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] So you are evading the question. Obviously you would never consider freely buying food for violent criminals in the United States (or else you would, since there is nothing stopping you). Your non-answer indicates that you would also oppose being forced to fund a foreign-aid program (via taxes) to do that same thing, and that you do not want to admit it because such an admission would undermine your entire political philosophy. If people should be forced to tend to the welfare of others at their own expense, why should you be an exception? If I should be forced to buy dinner for a murderer, why should you not have to contribute as well? Why do I owe the murderer any more than you do? If the proper concern is others at the expense of the self, why should the Canadian government not contribute to American criminals in need of food? Of course no Canadian would benefit from such a program, but the entire point of your political philosophy is to help others regardless of whether you benefit from it. If you are unwilling to give to those whom you owe nothing, then you have no right to criticize others for doing the same thing.Laihendi

Lai what's your response to my answer to the question you posed a few pages back?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] Nothing is infallible about the Constitution. I myself am an anarchist and, having read the Constitution and looked into the meanings behind the phrasing used in it, could point out flaws in it all day. But the Constitution exists to limit the power of the government. And a big part of that is not giving any one man the power to make war. If we're going to pay lip service to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we should at least read the damned thing. It has provisions in it for changing it, should the need arise. The president and congress cannot simply pick and choose which parts of it they should follow; they should change it through the defined process if they truly feel it needs changing. If the president can simply decide to circumvent the Constitution there's no point in trying to limit the power of government at all.Toxic-Seahorse

Anarchy is the single greatest threat to humanity. It strives to keep humanity stupid and enslaved to the incompetance of the individual. Only under a large technocratic government can a man be free and reach his highest potential.

A proper government should not be limited... AT ALL.

The USSR was a communist state run by incompetents...Not a technocracy.

Frank, can you define treason?

BossPerson

"treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation" from wikipedia.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="m25105"] You must have a very closed mind if you think everyone in prison doesn't deserve a normal life. Bad life experience that has clouded your judgement, or have you just lived a sheltered life?m25105

What part of violent felons and treason don't you understand?

sounds like a matter for a police force not a vigilante.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

It's still bloody expensive in contrast to having most of them returning to a normal life a la Norway.

But I guess we could always try to do things the worst way possible because we can!

Bane_09

except it's not.

Felons do not deserve a "normal life".

I don't think drug possession(or growing and selling) should be a federal crime in the first place.

Tax fraud definitly deserves imprisonment, but maybe not quite as sever as other felonies.