Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Question about Treason

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Since the government has basically turned into a money-making machine for businesses instead of promoting individual freedom, wouldn't it make sense for someone who doesn't spend every bit of their day making money for some tycoon to be a traitor?

For example, I could see treason charges being filed for anything from using Bitcoins to even owning a cd collection (since businesses are switching to a rent model, they wouldn't want you to own any old songs).

Thoughts? I could be way off here.

If anyone is interested, the thought comes from a mixture of Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. In Fahrenheit 451, which is the temperature at which books burn, the main character has a book collection that is hidden.

edit on 9-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
trea·son
noun \ˈtrē-zən\









Definition of TREASON


1

: the betrayal of a trust : treachery


2

: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family


See treason defined for English-language learners »


See treason defined for kids »


Examples of TREASON

He is guilty of treason.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Yeah, I think you are way off here.

Could those things one day become iillegal? Yes.
It seems these days that anything not explicitly identified as legal are by default now considered against the law. But that is still a large leap into the realm of treason.

The parameters of our "freedom" haven't been tightened so much that we are all traitors. More likely we we be accused of supporting terrorism with those actions first.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by thunder2u
 


I didn't post that right,, sorry. the definition seems pretty cut and dry to me, and has nothing to do with what you are suggesting, according to the definition. with all due respect to you, I see where you are going with this, but I am not feeling the treason part. is or can the government infringe on our rights, and make us believe there own agenda? of course they can, and do.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by thunder2u

1

: the betrayal of a trust : treachery


2

: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

-----------

In the U.S., the framers of the Constitution defined treason narrowly—as the levying of war against the U.S. or the giving of aid and comfort to its enemies—in order to lessen the possibility that those in power might falsely or loosely charge their political opponents with treason. See also sedition.




Awesome! Okay. So the framers of the constitution were already worried about this kind of thing happening, although the original definition "breach of trust" could totally be applied to anyone who doesn't believe in working for no benefit and wants to build up an individual life / own property, because the U.S. could coerce its populace into a situation where they are expected to be trusted to essentially be slaves and not gain anything for their work besides food, temporary shelter and small amounts of entertainment.

My main point is, individual creativity and initiative could be considered treasonous.
edit on 9-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Thanks, I think you are probably right about this. Treason is probably best left to this kind of thing:


In Algeria, treason is defined as the following:
*attempts to change the regime or actions aimed at incitement destruction of territory,
*sabotage to public and economic utilities
*participation in armed bands or in insurrectionary movements


Wikipedia

The rest might be simply considered illegal someday.


Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.


Wikipedia
edit on 9-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
EDIT: you beat me to it...


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Source

So I doubt having a CD collection is treasonous.
edit on 9-5-2013 by cartenz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
although the original definition "breach of trust" could totally be applied to anyone who doesn't believe in working for no benefit and wants to build up an individual life / own property, because the U.S. could coerce its populace into a situation where they are expected to be trusted to essentially be slaves and not gain anything for their work besides food, temporary shelter and small amounts of entertainment.

hmm I think you just described a majority of the current population in the US right now! payrates are so low in places that people are just existing, and cannot gainfully make anything. if I think about it, just last year there was something about it called the 99 percent. still not treachery of the people. now of the government, that can be construed as a totally different monster.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by thunder2u
 


Thank you! I think that's what made me think about this. That's how everyone my age is... they are just existing, some working two jobs, most getting less than minimum wage due to loopholes, or hardly any hours.

I think that is what is freaking me out. Most people make enough money to rent a place and hardly anyone is working to live, and the sad part is, hardly anyone is even building anything.

At least in Tijuana, Mexico, people own the crappy houses they build out of scrap metal and tires. I've been there. I think they are doing better than us. One lady had a nice house, and had even fenced it in with scrap fencing and made an amazing garden with shrubs and trees as well on a hill.

So to recap: they own their houses, they have families, they have free time, they are not afraid of losing material goods, and they also like to play old systems like NES and SNES. I think they have it better.
edit on 9-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Just a few words to hash out some historical context and give room perhaps for closer examination of the concept.

The concept of treason was a function of indisputable sovereignty - the welfare of the state is not subordinate to individual rights. The state can by power of authority compel obedience in any matter.

This was not because the state wished to seize everything, although it cannot be disputed that "people" acting as government are a different matter entirely. It was because up until the Constitution, no nation ever dared to explicitly base itself as completely separate from religion.

We nevertheless inherited the more or less Roman way of seeing things of course... as do many states.

Ponder this. If there were an empire... which existed as a monopoly... (but certainly not only the oft-dreaded NWO); would not any enticement and encouragement to depart from the ruling body's policy or even guideline, would, by definition, be subject to consideration as treason?
edit on 9-5-2013 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


you may just have something here

George III violated, 1798

Lèse-majesté

Lèse-majesté /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɨsti/[1] (French: lèse majesté [lɛz maʒɛste]; Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, "injured majesty"; in English, also lese-majesty, lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

This behavior was first classified as a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman Republic of Ancient Rome.[citation needed] In the Dominate, or Late Empire period the Emperors scrapped the Republican trappings of their predecessors and began to identify the state with their person.[2] Though legally the princeps civitatis (his official title, roughly 'first citizen') could never become a sovereign, as the republic was never officially abolished, emperors were deified as divus, first posthumously but by the Dominate period while reigning. Deified Emperors thus enjoyed the legal protection provided for the divinities of the state cult; by the time it was exchanged for Christianity, the monarchical tradition in all but name was well established.

Narrower conceptions of offences against Majesty as offences against the crown predominated in the European kingdoms that emerged in the early medieval period. In feudal Europe, various real crimes were classified as lese-majesty even though not intentionally directed against the crown, such as counterfeiting (because coins bear the monarch's effigy and/or coat of arms.)

However, since the disappearance of absolute monarchy, this is viewed as less of a crime, although similar, more malicious acts could be considered treason. By analogy, as modern times saw republics emerging as great powers, a similar crime may be constituted, though not under this name, by any offence against the highest representatives of any state. In particular, similar acts against heads of modern age totalitarian dictatorships are very likely to result in prosecution.



In October 2006, a Polish man was arrested in Warsaw after expressing his dissatisfaction with the leadership of Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński by passing gas loudly.[6]


note that it doesn't seem to apply to betrayal of the people's trust.

so perhaps any legal strategy accusing government officials of treason is doomed to failure, due to the same officials in control of the definition of the word
and instead should be based on lèse-humanité [which interestingly enough, has no definition on wiki! hmmmm...]
a crime most, if not all the political animals [ferae naturae]working as straw bosses for the oligarchy, are definitely, and unquestionably guilty of

S&F
edit on 9-5-2013 by TheMagus because: added comment






top topics



 
3

log in

join