Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges

[Tako]

Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges

(in times of war the law falls silent)

Is this true? If we look at out (near) history I sshould think it is.. IN Irak IN the Prisons there was some mass violation of the human rights.

WW 2 The Nazi's bombarded whole city's but so did the Allies so where the compassion where is the law that says: "we will not kill an innocent bystander (if there is such a thing)

In short:

When in war do the lwas still count or are they (purposely ) forgotten?

[Dude_Doc]

I would say this is true... in a way. Hitler, for example, never wanted the war to end because he thought that the state was at it's strongest position during such a period.

This is a very "usual" trick I would call it. Your country is fighting another enemy, and you (they suppose) like your country, therefore you must do as your country commands. The president could issue a century long martial-law, because there is an enemy that must be defeated, and so long as this enemy exists, you won't have much of a choice.

So yes, when there is a conflict, both parties want their way, and thus the law can be weakened to achieve one or the other's side wants and wishes.

[Dante]

1984 had the state in a permanent state of warfare in order to justify the measures of the government (where brainwashing just wouldn't do).

But anyways, yes. Anyone who speaks out against draconian laws in time of war is singled out as being unpatriotic or siding with the enemy. And so it gives the government carte blanche to do almost as they wish.

[Tako]

my point exactly, there would be noone to protest on his own because then you would be an enemy trieing to weaken the land and the goverment.

[Dude_Doc]

my point exactly, there would be noone to protest on his own because then you would be an enemy trieing to weaken the land and the goverment.

And that is why people from all over the world have to unite to crush the oppressive plutocrats who are directing much of the world's business today...

[GUNWOUNDS]

And that is why people from all over the world have to unite to crush the oppressive plutocrats who are directing much of the world's business today...

You're kidding right? "Plutocrats" can also be some of the most philanthropic people.

[Dante]

Is that really relevent? Philanthropy has little to do with patriotism and the abuse thereof.

[GUNWOUNDS]

His business comment wasnt all that relevant either. Which is why i was referring to his comment and not your post.

[Dante]

I think he meant it in that the only way for the individual to be heard (as opposed to ignored) by authority is to become the authority. In other words, government repression will stop when there is no government.

[Dunenewt]

And everything would turn into anarchy...

[Dante]

I didn't say I agreed.

[Dude_Doc]

I dont see you giving away billions a year.

How do you know? :)

How much do your charitable donations add up to?

I don't see charity doing much for the world. Sure, it's a small step, but no one actually wants to invest in creating limbs for children, or eyes for the blind, or ears for the deaf. They all want to make money by sending people into space, the big fat millionaires that will spend millions just to see the stars from space.

Besides the point, I work at a charity organization as a tele-salesman.

Might wanna think about that before assembling your mob with pitchforks to take down your local Walmart.

So, you agree that it is a bad thing to have people working for each other, while it is a good thing they work against each other in areas often directed at fantasies and dreams, not realities?

And everything would turn into anarchy...

Yes. Villages and city-states, all working hand in hand for each other, cooperating with each other. Not the kind of oppressive dictatorial conglomerate-based world we're living in today.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So, you agree that it is a bad thing to have people working for each other, while it is a good thing they work against each other in areas often directed at fantasies and dreams, not realities?

No... i think its ok to have people working for other people... i work for my boss because he is more qualified than me, when i become more experienced i will advance to a higher position. As for the last part of your sentence you need to rephrase it cause i do not understand what you are trying to say.

[Dude_Doc]

No... i think its ok to have people working for other people... i work for my boss because he is more qualified than me, when i become more experienced i will advance to a higher position.

Yes, but you do all the work, not him. Still, he is the one that gets the most money out of your work. Then, your whole work also depends on what it is. For example, is it really worth building expencive spacecraft when millions of children are starving all around the world, every single day? Which is more important? 

As for the last part of your sentence you need to rephrase it cause i do not understand what you are trying to say.

I were saying that we should concentrate on working for whatever people really need, like feeding other people, giving them medicine, housing, clean water, and so on, instead of spending money (in the scale we're doing today) on the entertainment business, or the space-missions and so on.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes, but you do all the work, not him. Still, he is the one that gets the most money out of your work. Then, your whole work also depends on what it is. For example, is it really worth building expencive spacecraft when millions of children are starving all around the world, every single day? Which is more important?

[Dude_Doc]

I never said entertainment is entirely wrong in itself, I said that the kind of mega-business that is going on in the entertainment business is so big that all that money could be directed into helping people instead of competing, or spending huge budgets on actors and effects.