RangerDave wrote:
Stathol wrote:
Khross summed it up nicely -- this is tu quoque, plain and simple. You are arguing that it's ethical (not even just that it's legal or permissible), to voluntarily enter into a contract in bad faith -- that is, with the pre-meditated intent to unconditionally break it -- because you "know" that the other party will break it.
...You're telling me that it's okay to try to cheat and defraud someone because I know they are a cheater and a defrauder. Really, now? How is that ethical? The ethical thing to do if you know that the other party is unethical is not to contract with them and not to cheat them. Two wrongs, etc.
/Devil's Advocate
One could argue that if both parties enter into the contract with the full knowledge and expectation that neither is acting entirely in good faith, then the "bad faith" is actually an implicit part of their agreement. In the citizenship context, the full (explicit and implicit) agreement would basically be:
Quote:
The United States hereby grants to Xeq all the rights and privileges of citizenship under the Constitution and laws of this country (the "Citizenship Rights"); provided, however, that both parties acknowledge and agree that the United States shall, immediately upon conclusion of this agreement and from time to time thereafter, in its sole discretion, rescind, violate or otherwise curtail any or all such Citizenship Rights. In consideration for the foregoing, Xeq hereby swears an oath of allegiance to the United States, which oath includes a commitment to renounce any and all allegiances to any and all countries other than the United States; provided, however, that both parties acknowledge and agree that Xeq shall, immediately upon conclusion of this agreement and from time to time thereafter, in his sole discretion, take such actions (the "Reinstatement Actions") as he deems necessary to preserve or reinstate any or all such foreign allegiances; but further provided that the United States reserves the right to rescind this contract and fine, imprison or otherwise bend Xeq over a barrel and have its way with him in the unlikely event that the United States becomes aware of and decides to care about any such Reinstatement Actions taken by Xeq.
/Devil's Advocate
Which has zero to do with this situation. The United States is not expecting Xeq to enter in bad faith, and moreover, Xeq has no reasonable expectaion the U.S. is either.
Elmo's assertion that it is hinges entirely upon his assertion that the U.S. is not providing what's guaranteed in the Constitution to its citizesn. However, that, in turn, is based entirely on Elmo's personal ideas about what the Consitution means; ideas Xeq does not share. It's highly disingenuous to suggest that it's ethically acceptable for Xeq to assume bad faith on the part of the U.S. based on a reading he does not accept in the first place.
Then, of course, there's the fact that you become a citizen of the United States, not of the U.S. government. The government administrates this, and while it has been guilty of certain misbehaviors, it isn't quite the same thing as the nation itself. Xeq's obligations as a citizens are to the nation; essentially to his fellow citizens; the government is an agent that handles these matters, not the entity Xeq would be obligating himself to.
This entire exercise relies on subtly substituting "U.S. government" for "United States", and in any case, is just special pleading. This concept of "pre-voiding" has never come up here before. It's merely something Elmo invented because he wanted a way to hollar and scream about the government and feel like Xeq was, in some small way, sticking it to The Man. The entire argument is just about Elmo finding ways to try to create special ethical rules he's never mentioned before to satisfy his emotional wants, and Khross pointing out what he's up to.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
airquotes 