[ExI] The Clinton Foundation
spike66 at att.net
Thu Sep 1 00:48:26 UTC 2016
>… On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
On Aug 31, 2016, at 1:55 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
> >>>…John, the problem with these lines of argument is that it tends towards ends-justify-the-means in government which is dangerous…
>>>…Sometimes the ends justify the means and sometimes they don't. If the ends never justify the means then nobody would ever do anything because there would be no way to do it…
>>…Oh my, John, I disagree with that comment so very much. The end does not justify the means if the means are illegal.
>…Whoa! So, since it was illegal to escape from, say, East Germany during the Cold War, escaping was wrong because illegal means can't be justified by the end of obtaining freedom?...Regards, Dan
Dan if one is working in government, then one must obey the laws of that government. Otherwise nothing that person does or pretends to do is of any value.
In the case in question, one who runs a family charity is running for an office in which that cannot be done. So it effectively removes a person doing charity from good works, which is negative good work, which is bad work, and is a bad deed.
To legitimately hold office, one would need to remove one’s name from the charity. Without the Clinton name on that foundation, no one will give to it. Without Clinton’s eligibility for high office, no one would have paid her all that money for speeches either, any more than anyone read her books. The big money for speeches (from universities (which have far bigger needs than a speech)) have the appearance of a pay-to-play. The donations to the Clinton foundation have the appearance of pay to play. The deletion of email already under subpoena demonstrates contempt for law and the appearance of impropriety. The arrangement in Clinton’s personal assistant’s employment was outright contract fraud, and is not even ambiguous.
Regarding ends-justify-the-means arguments, those lead to situations like those carried out by the German government on 30 June 1934. The means were illegal but the ends were thought to be good at the time: ridding the world of those who would oppose the Nazis. Extrajudicial executions were OK if the slain were bad guys. End result: the need to escape that you mentioned as an example.
Any end-justifies-the-means attitude anywhere in government is dangerous.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat