Reply #11: Let us first examine some precepts.

[Dr Morbius]

First, that government of the people is a legitimate right. I can defend this out of the notion that justice is an inherent right, but I suspect you'll go along with this premise so I'll move on.

Second, that government of the people is and must be defined as government which can be impacted by the people. All the offices of government must be open to all the people, at least nominally; the people themselves have every right to set some minimum standards, so that commission of a felony might disqualify an applicant for an office, or a difficult and serious office might require a person of a certain age; otherwise, the offices of government must be open to all. All the people should be able to vote to select their representatives in government, and all the people should have such a representative. Actions of a government of the people must not be secretive but must be made open to the eyes of the people for their judgment.

Third (last), that as government of the people is a legitimate right, so also changing that government is a legitimate right.

If you accept these precepts, then armed rebellion is a right if the legal mechanisms for changing one's government have been removed, or if the government is not a government of the people - and cannot be made so by peaceful means. The right to freedom confers the right to rebellion to obtain freedom if no peaceful way (to obtain freedom) exists. As peaceful means are available, and in fact have been carefully preserved despite all the deprivations of the powers that be, you and I have no right to armed rebellion. In my opinion. This was not the case some 235 years ago.



Now, every time I make a post like this one it gets ignored. I will wait for the outcome this time.