Those Who Fought Prohibition

[linate]

Ty

[Nihil Obstat]

Sinners inasmuch as everyone is a sinner. Heroes inasmuch as they defied an unjust and tyrannical law.

[Winchester]

I will be teaching my kid to consider Eliot Ness a scumbag thug, no better than the lowest of thieves.

[Lilllabettt]

 those who fought against prohibition by selling alcohol

 

 

you mean the mob?

[Winchester]

you mean the mob?

Not all sellers of alcohol were in the mob.

 

There were two criminal syndicates involved in prohibition. One side was selling alcohol, and the other was trying to prevent it. The former would never have risen to power without the latter.

 

Also, the latter poisoned alcohol. The Prohibition forces were murderers.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Winchester

[linate]

Dare I ask. Could the criminal v sinner v hero distinctions be applied likewise to the marijuana debate ? How does one properly demarcate when one is sinning for not following a law and merely rebelling against an unjust law?

[Lilllabettt]

Not all sellers of alcohol were in the mob.

 

There were two criminal syndicates involved in prohibition. One side was selling alcohol, and the other was trying to prevent it. The former would never have risen to power without the latter.

 

Also, the latter poisoned alcohol. The Prohibition forces were murderers.

 

 

most sellers of alcohol were either in the mob or doing business with the mob.  the moral dimensions of that activity have received thorough treatment in catholic literature. 

 

 

Interesting also about the alcohol poisoning prohibition forces - but the question isn't about prohibition forces is it?

tsk tsk tsk you make yourself out to be a politician.

They ignore the question they are asked and answer the question they prefer. 

[4588686]

I heard the Elliot Ness actually demarcated resources for his personal use and claimed to have the right to enforce by violence his arbitrary claim.   

[4588686]

What a violent thug.  A private propertiest.  

[4588686]

Trollin trollin trollin

[havok579257]

Dare I ask. Could the criminal v sinner v hero distinctions be applied likewise to the marijuana debate ? How does one properly demarcate when one is sinning for not following a law and merely rebelling against an unjust law?

 

 

one has to first determine if making marijuana illegal is an unjust law that goes against morals.  does the church hold a position about marijuana that says if it is not legal, it is an unjust law that should be disregarded?  if not, then one needs to question if marijuana is not only morally right to do but so important that one disregard the law to do it.  also one needs to look to the catechism to see what the church teaches about drug use. 

 

to me, just because you dislike a law or dislike all laws does not mean all laws are morally wrong.  I don't care if your an anarchist and you believe in no government.  that alone still does not make a law unjust.  there has to be a legit reasons and not personal preference for a law to be unjust.

[Lilllabettt]

the question is not about the justness of the law, though.

The question is whether the people who did business with/joined the mob to make money selling alcohol are "heroes" "criminals" or "sinners." 

thus far 4 people categorize them as "heroes," which is surprising to me, given the vitriol with which the Church has condemned association with mob activity.

[4588686]

the question is not about the justness of the law, though.

The question is whether the people who did business with/joined the mob to make money selling alcohol are "heroes" "criminals" or "sinners." 

thus far 4 people categorize them as "heroes," which is surprising to me, given the vitriol with which the Church has condemned association with mob activity.

I represent 25% of that vote.  I just wanted to come off as a devil-may-care cosmopolitan libertine who considers anybody who defends the right to drink a hero.  There wasn't a lot of thought in it.  Just cheekiness.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Of course we cannot do evil for the sake of good, so if rum runners acted wrongly incidentally to their occupation, we cannot condone that. But the rum running in and of itself is moral and in my opinion heroic.

[r2Dtoo]

Of course we cannot do evil for the sake of good, so if rum runners acted wrongly incidentally to their occupation, we cannot condone that. But the rum running in and of itself is moral and in my opinion heroic.

 

I wonder if you would express the same sentiment to someone who tortured a terrorist to extract information to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off in New York.

[Nihil Obstat]

I wonder if you would express the same sentiment to someone who tortured a terrorist to extract information to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off in New York.

Absolutely. We can never condone evil. Not for any reason.

[Lilllabettt]

Rum running was a business property of the mob. As Winchester pointed out, the mob was empowered and enriched enormously  during prohibtion with the help of people who sold alcohol for them.Can we do "good" if some of the consequences are gravely evil? 

Edited October 27, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[r2Dtoo]

Absolutely. We can never condone evil. Not for any reason.

 

Actually, that wasn't the part I was talking about.  I was talking about whether or not you would praise it as "heroic".

[Nihil Obstat]

Rum running was a business property of the mob. As Winchester pointed out, the mob was empowered and enriched enormously during prohibtion with the help of people who sold alcohol for them.Can we do "good" if some of the consequences are gravely evil?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Of course our assessment of morality includes the wider circumstances. But they come last, as we are not consequentialists.

[Nihil Obstat]

Actually, that wasn't the part I was talking about. I was talking about whether or not you would praise it as "heroic".

I am afraid I do not follow. Can you clarify?