As a private citizen it might be possible to be neutral to crime and to still not be a criminal. A private citizen might be able to be non-criminal and still not be opposed to crime. But if we are in government we must be distinctly against crime otherwise we are complying with the criminals. The government is criminal if it is not opposed to crime since the purpose of the state (above all others) is that it is opposed to crime.
The government is criminal if it is not opposed to crime.
Any government which is not fully-democratic is criminal since the government must seek a mandate from the people to claim legitimacy. The purpose of (and justification for) the government must be to serve the people and so then if democracy is a threat to the state then the state has no legitimacy. But first-past-the-post (fptp) is not a truly democratic system and so then any government which endorses fptp is condoning (or at least accepting) crime. But (from above) for the government to accept crime is for it to be actively criminal itself because unlike perhaps a typical citizen the government has no right to be ambivalent about crime. The state is criminal if it fails to oppose fptp.
For the state to accept and not oppose fptp is a criminal act because the state must oppose crime at all times (and fptp is criminal).
No comments:
Post a Comment