When is armed rebellion a legitimate right of the people?

[BrentWil]

This county was founded by an armed rebellion. Yet, if it is mentioned today, it is seen as highly dangerous. This seems odd to me. Not that it isn't highly dangerous. It is. The American Revolutionary period saw the death of an ungodly amount of people (there was a small pox epidemic going on at the same time).

The thing that I can't wrap my mind around is that the right of rebellion was a foundation of the classical liberal movement. John Locke called it an "appeal to heaven", for example. Today, we and the right use all sorts of extreme language to describe the other side. My point is, if we truly believe that the right is as bad as we say and that when they are in power, their policies result in thousands of death by war, and tyrannical rule, shouldn't it follow that they should be resisted at all cost? I wouldn't advocate that, but when you look at how both sides describe the other, it seems like something that our founders would have rebelled against.

The question then follows, is armed rebellion EVER called for? If so, when? Is this something that should be left in the past? Do we as a people need to watch our language on both sides?

[stray cat]

1. When you are willing to fight and die for it along with your family?

And fight the actual government and military and not murder anyone who is convenient -otherwise you are just a mass murderer. Also you have to have a better system in place to replace it with and not just be a mindless rampaging mob

[BrentWil]

2. Shouldn't there the system be really really bad?

I mean, I am just saying. I don't think we are close to it, but if you were to do it, you have to be replacing something really bad. I would say something like the USSR under Stalin or China under Mao.

[quinnox]

3. Too heavy, I prefer this - look at Cigar Guy!

[Courtesy Flush]

4. When they win.

When the rebels win, they set the new standard. When they lose, they're criminals. It's all relative.

[BrentWil]

5. No Objective standard?

So the attempt to remove Hitler was not moral?

[Courtesy Flush]

35. But Hitler was removed

The effort was successful, but not everyone who tried succeeded. If the Nazis had won, they would have written the history books.

[BrentWil]

54. True...

But even if he had won, the attempt to remove him would have been a moral act.

[JackRiddler]

49. There were barely any attempts to remove Hitler...

that were undertaken for moral reasons. A couple of assassination attempts, that's all.

As for the war, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, killing 20 million citizens of that nation in a merciless attempt at extermination, and soon after declared war on the United States, which had been attacked by Japan. The two later superpowers defended themselves not only legitimately but out of necessity, and in Europe they took the war all the way to Berlin, since the Nazis were determined never to surrender.

I never understand why World War II is always used as an example of a "good war." The "good" side (and they were the good, relatively speaking) were forced into it by an aggressive, direct threat to their existence. You can call it moral, but morality is about choices, and it is secondary when you are forced into a course of action.

[BrentWil]

55. American didn't have to declare war on Germany..

Just pointing that out. That was a choice. Moreover, the aid against Germany was largely a choice.

[LanternWaste]

56. Germany declared war on America...

Germany declared war on America...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

6. Wow, first "Sarah Palin wouldn't be bad" as President, now "armed rebellion."

You're coverin' all the bases. :*

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

9. I never said you said she would be a good President. You said,

"Sarah Palin wouldn't be bad" as President, which is exactly
what I said you said.

Hey, I said you were covering all the bases.
Learn how to take a compliment.

[BrentWil]

10. That isn't what I said. NT

[A-Schwarzenegger]

11. That's exactly what you said, before you deleted it.

Unfortunately for you, you were quoted and copied before
the deletion.

[Jamastiene]

19. Oh, yeah, it is.

I saw it too.

[dionysus]

59. !

:rofl:

[chillspike]

8. That's why we were given the right to vote them out

So we wouldn't need to shed blood to change the government. Armed rebellion would only be excusable if voting were taken away.

[Waltons_Mtn]

27. Well I think that is what the republicans are shooting for.

I think the Patriot Act was actually the first real attempt by the Re-thugs to test the waters of unlimited executive powers. I think we underestimating our opponents. I think that there was a plan to extend the Presidents power. They set it up so that would can not get fully out of Iraq and Afghanistan, if they win in 2012 within six months we will be in Iran or Somalia, or some other god-forsaken place. They will invite another terrorist attack on this country and with the right timing to get public (mindless) support, they will say that we must give the president complete authority over government and do away with voting all together. An empire needs an emperor after all. And it is at that time my rifle comes out.

[Dr Morbius]

12. Let us first examine some precepts.

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.

[BrentWil]

14. good post...

However, can a democratic government not trample individual rights? An example might be Russia. The structure of democracy is certainly there. However, true individual rights are not. If the masses take away the rights of a group of people, does that group have a right to rebel?

[Dr Morbius]

16. Ah. The "structure of democracy" isn't exactly in place, methinks.

The offices of government aren't open to all. Not just anyone can be President of Russia; Putin appointed the last President. The actions of the Russian government are not open. Can the Russian people claim they have any chance of changing their government? The Russians do not have the structure of democracy. They have the appearance of the structure of democracy. The difference is vital. I submit that a government of the people by definition cannot trample the rights of individuals; then it would cease to be a government of the people and would be a government controlling the people.

Before I go on, thanks for a few good questions and your courtesy. Really.

To your last question: I am not really sure if such a group has a right to "rebel" but they most definitely have a right to civil disobedience. John Rawls wrote on this very subject in his Collected Papers; much recommended. I fully believe that no one has a right to commit violence for any reason if a peaceful way to achieve the (presumably laudable and just) objective may be employed instead.

[BrentWil]

26. Technically they are open to all

However, lets take Russia out of it. Lets create a hypothetical democracy that is ruled by only the people. No constitution to limit the authority of government. Lets say that the people of that government vote to limit basic rights. Under that case of democracy, do people have a right to rebel?

[Dr Morbius]

32. Um...

This is an extreme hypothetical, you know. I promise you, unless the power of government is limited, freedom is limited. Even when government is democratic, there is potential for tyranny unless the power of government is carefully limited. When government is democratic, the decisions made are not made by all the people; they are simply approved by the majority. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

If there is no constitution to "limit" the power of government, there is no constitution to create the power of government. Like I say, an extreme hypothetical. And in this hypothetical, do the people have a peaceful means to alter their government? This remains the key; if people have access to a mechanism in the law which allows them to change the government peacefully, it remains immoral for people to turn to arms to achieve their goal.

[BrentWil]

34. Okay, to be it in better terms

So if 25 percent people suffer the abuse of 75 percent of the people, but those people are allowed to vote, they have no right to rebel? The 25 percent will never win an election and the 75 percent will always continue the abuse.

[Dr Morbius]

47. I don't know how I can be more clear.

Ends do not justify means. Armed rebellion is war; it is internal war but war nevertheless. War means death, usually on a very large scale. Rational beings do not ever choose war; war is selected only by reasonable people when the alternative is even worse.

Now, you can hypothesize forever about specifics, but in terms of rights, I remain resolute on this point: it is only acceptable to spill blood - for ANY purpose - when peaceful means are not available. If peaceful means are available, then armed rebellion is unnecessary and unnecessary bloodshed is pretty obviously immoral.

When is armed rebellion morally justifiable? When there's NO OTHER WAY.

[BrentWil]

51. TO get this your position totally right

A people do not have a right to rebel if they have the means to vote. Even if other rights are repressed and the people will never gain change their current situation because the masses favor their repression.

[safeinOhio]

18. Sam Adams said it.

"In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"
Samuel Adams

[Zorra]

31. Here's what the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

[GA_ArmyVet]

46. Actually a pretty good synopsis

I was all set to not like this comment, as the OP kind of put me off a bit with all the reference to the violent overthrow of government. You however did a great write up, at least in my opinion. My first thought was if you want to know when armed rebellion is justified, read the Declaration of Indepenance...they listed the specific reason for doing so..of course that did not make them any less guilty of treason in the eyes of England.

[Dr Morbius]

48. Thank you. I'm afraid that reading the DofI actually confuses some people.

Some have claimed that the D of I justifies the secession of the south in 1861, or that it means we have the right to overthrow our own government at any given time. The D of I explains pretty well why our country's founders considered our own revolution justified; it makes a good case even today for the action. It's a vitally important document I'd like all Americans to read (though what I wouldn't give to yell at Jefferson a bit for his choice of words!). But nowhere does it mention why a bloody revolution might NOT be necessary, or why it might not be justifiable. For this, there is simply no substitute for careful thought.

Thanks again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. When the government is usurping the rights of the people

in the 18th century this meant high taxes with no representation in Parliament.

These days, though it is screamed that we have lost all rights by fringes on BOTH SIDES, for the most part the government is still doing the will of the people. No, not as much as I'd like it, but....

[Canuckistanian]

15. When it's self-defence

When YOU'RE being fired on yourself.

But I know what you mean. Some think that rebellion is a necessary "correction" that needs to be done after a period of great change, in order to "restore original values".

Nonsense. If a society doesn't have enough foresight to manage change without self-destructing, it probably wasn't the best model to begin with.

That's what made the American model work for over 200 years. It had a basic framework that ALLOWED for change.

The main problems NOW in America are those who are THREATENED by change. And the scary part is, those scared people are starting to gain actual political traction.

And fear is NEVER a good basis for change.

[hayu_lol]

17. Answer to the question is in...

the Declaration of Independence.

[Canuckistanian]

20. The Constitution is an excellent document

And a fine model for future growth.

The problem is, you have these teabaggers who basically want to scrap large parts of the Constitution (e.g. the 4th Amendment or the 19th Amendment {Women's Right to Vote)) in order to "correct" perceived injustices.

That won't fly. Either you accept the whole package or you don't. And you enforce ALL of it.

[sharesunited]

21. Been there, done that. It was called the Civil War. Never again.

Same reason why the 2nd Amendment is as obsolete as the Three-Fifths Compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

[derby378]

22. I don't like to talk about violence against the government, but...

...Thomas Jefferson was right when he talked about the Tree of Liberty. It's an uncomfortable quote, to be sure, and teabaggers are trying to claim it for our own, but one look at World War II should be enough to convince most rational people of what Jefferson was getting at.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people needs to be reminded that their power comes from us on an individual and collective basis. And if that means we keep a few military rifles stashed away in our closets and over the fireplaces as a gentle reminder to the government, then so be it - although I hope that our rifles rust before we ever need to bear them in another revolution.

[Dr Morbius]

23. In our time, it is not government that needs to be reminded of that.

Rather, it is the American people who seem to have forgotten.

[derby378]

25. Watch the last two-and-a-half minutes of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMf7UVw8rgQ

Penn and Teller sum it up much better than I ever could, so I think I'll let them.

[bemildred]

24. Always. nt

[oldhippie]

28. Pretty easy .....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Has something changed that I didn't notice?

[uppityperson]

29. Are you taking armed rebellion or talk?"the right of rebellion was a foundation of the classical lib

"the right of rebellion was a foundation of the classical liberal movement."

What?

"Today, we and the right use all sorts of extreme language to describe the other side. My point is, if we truly believe that the right is as bad as we say and that when they are in power, their policies result in thousands of death by war, and tyrannical rule, shouldn't it follow that they should be resisted at all cost? "

Again, are you talking talking nasty or armed rebellion? Do you mean no one should use rhetoric unless they are willing to back it up with actions like armed rebellion?

Does talking nasty about "them" necessarily = "armed rebellion"?

[BrentWil]

33. Well...

It was a foundation of classical liberalism. Read Locke. If the abuse of the other side (or our side, if you listen to the right) was as bad as the language used, our founders would rebel. So two options. The first, the abuse isn't that bad. The second, we don't believe that a free people should rebel against an abusive government. I think it is option one.

[uppityperson]

40. "the abuse isn't that bad" is what you think. Climate change, invasions of Iraq/Afgh, economy, debt,

etc etc etc have not caused the deaths of thousands, "isn't that bad"? You don't think it is "we don't believe that a free people should rebel against an abusive government" but that "the abuse isn't that bad".

Huh.

[apocalypsehow]

30. In 2010? In a largely civilized world full of free speech & redress of grievances protections? NEVER

You've got to be kidding with this OP - is it a joke? :shrug:

UnRec. :thumbsdown:

[ThomWV]

36. The Constitution renders armed rebellion unnecessary

You do not have to shoot someone who you can vote out of office.

[The Magistrate]

37. Armed Rebellion Is Legitimate When It Succeeds, Sir...

"If we lose, we're the rebel army. If we win, we're the loyal army."

[oldhippie]

39. Exactly. If you win, you're legitimate. Lose and you're a rebel.

.

[KharmaTrain]

38. 1776 Isn't 2010

When I hear these traitors with their "2nd Ammendment" remedies, do they really think they stand a chance? This isn't a time where flintlocks can bring down the most powerful armies of the world. Even with their arsenals, the insurectionists will be hard pressed to get out of their neighborhoods facing state national guard or a federal army. It's a mis-match that would turn their dreams of civil war into a quick police action.

It's one thing to play macho it's another thing to really do it. We already see there is poor coordination among the various teabag groups making any resistance localized. I honestly believe that those in the military won't heed the call over their oath to protect and defend the United States. Remember, the ancestors of these losers tried this stunt in 1861 and that didn't turn out too well for them.

[Amonester]

41. The 2008-2010 tea-nitwits don't know anything about 1861.

They can't even remember the 2007-2008 financial disasters their master$ pulled on them...

They 'imagine' (because beck&co keeps flashing it on their neurones daily...) their own stupid bulliness, coupled with an un-real godly intervention... that they would win over all current US military forces...

Whatta bunch of real loons.

[BrentWil]

43. WHile it wouldn't happen...

Alot of the National Guard Units would fight with their local communities. There are alot of guns in this country. Frankly, it would be no "police action" from a purely military point of view.

[treestar]

42. People who need to be inspired and enthused and courted to go and

vote are hardly going to risk their lives that way.

[bemildred]

44. LOL.

:thumbsup:

[some guy]

45. After the win

Winning legitimizes the rebellion; lose and they're just a bunch of traitors and/or nut jobs.

[JackRiddler]

50. I find that this question is too easily put at the forefront.

When is armed rebellion necessary because all other options are foreclosed? Not yet.

When would it be insane because it is guaranteed to produce the opposite of any desired effect?

Right about now, I'd have to say. Any violent resistance is guaranteed to be of a posturing, symbolic nature that backfires. It will be defined as "terrorism" and used to strengthen the repressive sides of the state.

My belief in non-violence is not out of pacifism, but out of a recognition that an insistent non-violent resistance will be the only means to ever cause the imperialist beast to dissolve.

It's not what I'd say to those who resist foreign occupation, by the way.

In modern societies organized violence will always cause right vs. wrong to turn into the actually unrelated question of which side can achieve military superiority.

[BrentWil]

52. So for you it is politics..

Armed resistance isn't as likely to succeed as current methods.

[JackRiddler]

53. Politics are fundamental.

Armed resistance is not justified in the present American context. Not politically or morally.

If you can't get millions of outraged and determined people out on the street persistently to shut down the war system in the first place, then armed action is mere vanguarding, doomed to failure in a modern context (this is not Cuba in 1959). As long as the people are passive in the face of their own ongoing impoverishment, activist energy can only be invested productively in media, education and organizing -- at the very least, social experimentation (making alternative models available for the inevitable moments of systemic crisis).

Armed resistance is justified only if the government is engaging in mass suppression of political resistance. They aren't. They do engage in COINTELPRO and surveillance many other deceptions and violations of basic rights of citizens, yes. But they haven't attacked the people as a whole, because there has not been a need for it. And I doubt they would be able to do so, if there were a need for it.

[Iggo]

57. When, in the course of human events etc etc etc...

[Codeine]

58. It's never "legitimate", insofar as legitimacy is conferred by law.

One can argue its morality, or its necessity, but it would never be legitimate. Our own revolution was not legitimate, but it was morally justifiable in my opinion.