Printable View
Where should be the line drawn between the duty of obedience and the right of revolution? In other words, up to which point should a citizen obey the laws of its government and when (under which circumstances) could he rightfully say "okay, that's it" and ally with others to overthrow the government? In your opinion, is there a natural law outside the realm of positive law that grants the right of revolution?
I suppose you always have a right for revolution. You just have to be strong and influential enough to actually carry it out. Otherwise you just end up in prison or deathrow for high treason I would imagine.
You're right, if the crime is perfect, then you will be the one laying down the laws. Only the attempt of treason is penal. :laugh4:
EDIT: any takers? I know it's not a hot topic, but it's always hot, actually.
One could argue that democracies have a 'revolution' every four or five years. Ergo no need for an armed uprising.
Good point. And what about non-democratic countries? What about non-democratic revolutions in democracies? What about democratic revolutions in democracies between the 4-5 year cycles?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Prudence would dictate that governments should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long chain of abuses and usurpations...
You'd have to define "Revolution". Armed insurrection to democratic removal could all be considered revolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
When a government no longer serves it's people, rather, when a government serves against it's people, a revolution becomes necessary. It is my belief that a person owes obediance to the nation that houses that person. Loyalty is another thing. In the United States, for example, many in the South had loyalty to State above Federal Government. I believe a person should be loyal to A) Family B)Nation and C)Culture (Father/Motherland).Quote:
In other words, up to which point should a citizen obey the laws of its government and when (under which circumstances) could he rightfully say "okay, that's it" and ally with others to overthrow the government?
Says the hypocrites who put down the whiskey rebellion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
how are they hypocrites? the goal they were fighting for in the beginning was not less taxes, but representation in England's gov. so they could feel like they had a say in these taxes being put unfairly upon them. they had established the Constitution and the Republican form of gov. so these whiskey rebellion people now had a say in their gov. and their taxes. the first one was a rebellion against taxation without representation and whiskey rebellion was a rebellion against taxation. theres a difference, so no, they were not hypocrites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
the whiskeyites obviously didn't feel represented. They just didn't have any fancy writers in their ranks; perhaps that's where the right to rebel lies.
no, they felt like they could get away with not paying the tax by forming a violent mob with the other whiskey distilleries which worked perfectly for them under the weak Articles of Confederation. unfortunately the Constitution was a bit stronger then the Articles of Confederation, and the crushing of the violent mob approach showed that the 13 colonies could prevent themselves from entering anarchy or mob mentality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
They felt the tax was unfair, which is part and parcell with not being represented.
Meanwhile, the loyalists are wondering why the tar and feathering of the Crown's tax agents, the destruction of national tea, and obviously open rebellion do not fall under "anarchy or mob mentality."
An unfair tax and being taxed without representation are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
No, it was not anarchy or mob mentality (at least not completely) because the rebellion was an organized effort where the states came together, formed a Congress, a government based on the Articles of Confederation and an army to present themselves as an independent entity, able to defend themselves. Then, when the Articles of Confederation were breaking down after the war had ended, they manged to build an even more solid government and instead of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists breaking out in all chaos over the Constitution, they worked things out in the end and compromised (they wrote towards each other!), which is how the Bill of Rights was presented and ratified into the Constitution.
Did things get out of control on the individual level toward some key loyalists, sure but thats hardly something that can be stopped, especially when you have millions of pissed off people wanting to do something.
If you think that is anarchy, tell me how you think the country could have been formed with more civility.
When the Spanish monarch wants to introduce a 10% income ta-
10%??????
Umm, well, wouldn't you say that Britain rather deserved those taxes? Since Britain had just spent a massive amount of money defending the colonies? Ro be honest, it was only avery small amount of money and the colonists all owed their land to the Crown.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
In my view, the men whom formed the Congress were nothing more than middle class wigs who saw an opportunity and took it, thus why they used such absurdly high minded language, to hide the fact that they were base opportunists.
And in some regions of America, it was nothing but bloody mindedness.
Line? What line? There is no line. There is, instead, a democratic duty to keep one's government in permanent fear of you. I am never not making revolution. Take away my cofffee break and I'll take to the streets and burn Paris.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Monsieur est un fonctionnaire d'État?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This sounds like anarchism. Maybe anarcho-individualism, but not anarcho-syndicalism. What is the moral foundation of anarcho-individualism? How is a government supposed to govern, how are laws supposed to keep the social order, if anyone can revolt for a coffee break - using your figurative example?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
he's french
Anarchism? No. I was merely stating man's inalieble right to oppose tyranny. And no coffee for Louis equals tyranny.Quote:
Originally Posted by PW
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/92...tionnaire2.jpg
Oh my dear Andres, you do betray above that you are Flemish, not Walloon. :beam:
In your world, the government has no control over coffee breaks outside the public sector. Here, coffee breaks are not a private matter, but a social right that is to be protected, ultimately, by the government.
I am, however, indeed funded by the government. On the bright side, I am financed partly by other countries. There is probably not a European poster here whose taxes don't flow into my pocket. And large and hungry pockets they are too.
My lunches are publicly financed expenses, and I've got exquisite taste. I shall dedicate my next lunch, ten minutes from now, to all you foreign orgahs who are sweating like a slave RIGHT NOW just to pay for it. :2thumbsup:
That sounds like we should revolt against you. Bad, bad oppressor. :whip: Anyway, the coffee's on me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
How can you not like the guy?
Maybe I should move and become a Walloon. There are only benefits: beautiful landscapes, nice and friendly people, hot women, the Flemish pay for everything and I can keep my beloved Belgian citizenship :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Wallonia ftw?
The causes of the revolution were many, what it boiled down to was fear among the Americans that britain would descend into tyranny as had several other countries in that time period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
The whiskey tax, though unfair, was not reason enough for rebellion, no more so than the stamp tax alone would have been.
They had the right to rebel and exercised it. The right to rebel does not betoken success in that effort. Nothing about their right to rebel prevents the government from opposing such a rebellion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
When corruption not only happens within the government, but is institutionalised and accepted.
Nice summary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If one believes in representative democracy, then surely the only unfair tax is one in which you are not represented?Quote:
Originally Posted by acin
That's certainly a more consistent answer than "rebellion is only cool if we're doing it." :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If it was accepted, wouldn't there be no rebellion anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Though with your definition, I'm going to go burn down the statehouse in Trenton. :D
I meant accepted with the government - ie they feel no need to apologise because they were technically acting within the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
So while I have this right to revolution, I'm just too lazy to exercise it! :beam: