Is it illegal to be a Sith Lord?

Hello, George. First, you only addressed one point I made. Second, the British were not worse than a dictatorship at the time. True, they were not as politically or liberally democratic as they are now-but neither were we. And our beef the British was more a sense of seeing ourselves as primarily Virginians and New Yorkers, secondarily Americans, and thirdly as British subjects. True, we invoked republican and democractic principles to justify our rebellion, but we got those principles from contemporary British and French sources as well as classical sources. A republic by its very nature has monarchical elements. Read Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Milton, Montesquieu--the founding fathers did. Political democracy is one of the 3 elements in a republic, the other 2 being aristocracy and monarchy. But, rather than require you to read the appropriate sources, I'll save you the trouble and repost an earlier post on republics and democracies.

 

From what i've read yeah.


being a sith lord is ileegal, punisible by a fine. But what windu did was way outta line.

 

Yoshifett, usually we agree, but not this time. They would know who the Sith were. The foundation of the Republic as we know came after the Jedi liberation from Sith oppression. And in AOTC, just what was Mace going to tell the Senate, who would be very confused if they did not know what a Sith was. Padme didn't need any explanation what a Sith was--Kenobi talks to her knowing that she knows.

 

Is it illegal to be in the Church of Satan? No. Is it illegal to rob a bank while being a member? Yes. So you see it's not the ideology that's the issue here, it's the choices an individual makes that are. Philosophy and actions are exclusive from one other in this instance.

 

Ok your moving a little off the point. Monarchies are worse then dictorships because Monarchs arent elected, dictators are at the very least elected.

 

^^^ Depends on the kind of dictatorship, and who's the dictator...

Even the classic example, the dictator rei gerendae causa, was not elected by the people. This classic example is exactly what Supreme Chancellor Palpatine was before the First Galactic Empire.

The original interpretation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has the word "dictatorship" synonymous with "a collective dictatorium rei gerendae causa." This is, by definition, based on the support of at least the factory workers and the soldiers (and MAYBE the countryside farmers).

The military dictators are NOT elected by the people.

 

Once again, it is illegal in this country to promote overthrowing the government. And the Sith have as an ideology that they practice that would result in the overthrow of the Republic--which they did. That's if you model the Republic after the US. But obviously GL did not, as they are kings and queens--monarchs--within the Republic. And, in other republics, like Germany and Italy, it is in fact unconstitutional to be a member a fascist. These modern republics were founded after liberation from their dictators and rendered unconstitutional and thus illegal affiliation with parties aligned with ideologies of the former oppressors.

Monarchs can be elected. The "Holy Roman" Emperors were elected by an electoral college of royals and aristocrats. Germanic tribal kings were elected long ago. A monarchy may be constitutional as it is in republics like the UK, Denmark, and Japan that also have parliamentary democracies. As I previously posted, the Roman consuls and contemporary presidents and governors are elected officials who embody the monarchical element and whose power was kept in check by the aristocratic and democratic elements. Moreover, the Founding Fathers did not think it inconsistent to have a King, George Washington, in the new republic. The idea fell through, we got a president, who would have served for life if the Hamiltonian faction had prevailed. Finally, a military coup that establishes a dictatorship does not require an election, though it may hold one afterwards to give the semblance of their hegemony being ratified by the populace.

Hitler was one who was elected, indirectly. President Hindenburg, who defeated Hitler in the national popular election, later asked Hitler to form a government as Chancellor. The Reichstag, of course, had to ratify, which happened from a coalition of rightists, including enough Nazis, who had been elected by the people. Hindenburg died and Hitler created the Führership, inspired by the American presidency, which combines the offices of chief of state and head of government, and Mussolini's dictatorial "duce."

 

You dont need to give me a history lesson Ive been studying history for 20 years already. And yes Monarchies can be elected but the British Monarchy back then werent.

 

Perhaps you have been studying history for 20 years but your use of the terms were inconsistent and inaccurate. Moreover, you make factual errors. The British monarchy was never elected, neither then nor now. Furthermore, Britain did not have an absolute monarchy then--it had a constitutional monarchy as it does now, though then the monarch still had more power than now. Also, while Britain may have not been as democratic then as now, it was not a dictatorship or worse.

And, to get back to my original counterargument and thus to get back on topic, your analogy is false. Don't think of US forming after breaking away from the UK, think more of Germany and Italy restoring republics after liberation from their oppressors. Even then, this analogy is not exact as the Jedi were not the Allies. But my point is that the Republic that we know in the GFFA was formed after the Jedi liberated the known Galaxy from the Sith. Perhaps there was a previous Republic that was in turn overthrown by earlier Sith--hard to say because does GL care enough for the EU for there to be consistent with it now that he has finished the PT.

 

Well, Um...a sith is just a jedi who went to the dark side. If your just minding your bussniss and not doing a thing to bother anyone else, than your fine. But because sith's are evil they want power, and theres probley not a sith in history who was tottaly innocent. Darth Sideous started a war.

 

I'm not sure why people seem to think that being a part of the Sith isn't illegal. In fact, I'm wondering why people keep stating it as a fact. I would certainly assume it's highly illegal given there very destructive history over the entire galaxy, that is until Palpatine comes to power and Vader runs around like it's nothing.

 

"Hello the British were a absolute Monarchy back then, much worse then a dictatorship. Why do you think the American colonists wanted independance and freedom from them?"

actually there was indeed a parliment, and granted, while we werent well represented, we werent necesserily fighting for freedom from tyranny or anything.

im glad were a seperate state, but most of the revoultionaries were mad because they were having to pay taxes.

but i get the basics of what your saying.

 

Perhaps you have been studying history for 20 years but your use of the terms were inconsistent and inaccurate. Moreover, you make factual errors. The British monarchy was never elected, neither then nor now.


I never said they were elected, you were the one who said that and I told you they didnt elect Monarchs! And you were the one who said the British were a republic before the US took over America in the first place! LOL..Nice attempt to twist everything around PrinceEspaaValorum

 

the revolutionaries were mad about taxation sure, taxation without proper represenatation, we had not much of a voice in Parliament, being controlled by Bureaucrats from the mother country.So it wasn't purely the taxes, Impressment of sailors was also an issue, one that reoccurred in 1812.

 

we are talking about ROTS here, right?. just checking.

 

yeah good point let's get back to it...I don;t think being a Sith was illegal, Palps war was, and so was his stay in office.

 

I didn't twist anything. Here is what you wrote.

Your last clause implies that the British monarchs are now elected. And earlier you had a B&W picture in which monarchs are not elected, dictators are, and consequently monarchs are worse.

Sorry, but your argument and writing have not advanced your untenable claims.

 

Being a Sith is no crime. I doubt the Jedi would or could Persecute people based on their beliefs. But starting a illegal war?, killing thousands of Jedi while being a Sith Lord?, well then i'm sure all bets are off. The Jedi likely have the authority to protect the Republic from a Sith THREAT if one surfaces. but I don't see how being a Sith can be a Crime.

 

Being a Sith is no crime? When the wrong person(Palpatine) holds power, it is a crime. His goal is to rule the galaxy and dictate and enslave. The Jedi's purpose is to defend the galaxy against those who seek to coerce. The Jedi and the Sith can not co exist because if they could, Palpatine, Darth Maul, and Darth Tyranus would have been looked at as civilized beings.

Similarily, Yoda and Kenobi must go into hiding just like Darth Bane did before the rule of two.

 

PrinceEspaaValorum posted:
Monarchs can be elected. The "Holy Roman" Emperors were elected by an electoral college of royals and aristocrats. Germanic tribal kings were elected long ago.


Yet you were the one who first said some monarchies are elected. Nice try once again

 

These side arguments deal with whether or not is illegal in a democratic republic to be a Sith. I argue yes by showing how republics like the US make it illegal to promote overthrowing the US government, while post-WWII German and Italian constitutions make it illegal to belong to parties advocating the ideology of the former oppressors of Germany and Italy. Thus, it is not inconsistent to make it illegal to have a political view in a democratic republic when those views advocate actions of realization of overthrowing democratic government.

As the Republic was founded after the Jedi liberation from Sith oppression, as the Sith didn't linger around to practice their dark arts as a hobby but by their nature must retake the galaxy, then it is not unlikely for the Galactic Republic to prohibit being a Sith. However, defense of a false analogy made in a counterargument has led us astray....

 

Yes--the Holy Roman emperors and German tribal kings. I'm sorry, DGB, but you haven't yet argued cogently in this thread.

 

Being a Sith is no crime? When the wrong person(Palpatine) holds power, it is a crime. His goal is to rule the galaxy and dictate and enslave.

Not sure if you are refering to my last post, but I think we are actually in agreement.

 

Im sorry but your 'history' is terribly flawed and laughable making many of your points un-arguable

 

PPOR.