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:
I think that the Chinese concept of Mandate of Heaven got it right: those who are in power deserve to keep that power for as long as they are able to hold that power. Thus, any successful revolution is by definition justified, since the previous power holders have clearly lost the Mandate of Heaven.
What a wonderful countryQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
And what in gods name is a Walloon? Is that some type of dog? Is it related to the Yorkshire?
French people living in Belgium!
A Walloon is a cross between a wally and a buffoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
There's no natural right for revolution and I doubt any government will legalize revolution under certain circumstances. Natural right would be the right of the stronger/fitter, basically Darwinism or so.
I think people will revolt when they revolt and sometimes i will think it's a good idea and sometimes I won't. Their current ruler will usually think it's a bad idea. :shrug:
In practical sense the right to revolt is based on the outcome of the revolution. If you fail, you have committed treason, if successful then the traitors are who have been overthrown.
Personally i think that if constitution and ones constitutional rights are being violated heavily enough by the ruling government, revolution can become necessary.
Right of Revolution: I quite sure that to guillotine the King was against the law…:inquisitive:
There is no right of Revolution. When populations raise and start to burn their masters’ properties, the laws voted by the masters were supposed to outlaw this kind of events don’t apply.
That is why in France the attempt by the 19th Century French President Zarkoleon to restrain the right of the workers won’t and doesn’t work.
It was time when a workers gathering was illegal. Did it prevent to creation on Unions? No.
It was time when the police had the right to shoot at a demonstration. Did it prevent demonstrations? No, it just radicalised them. When you start you have no choice than to succeed…
The unrest, the mob’s violence is a respond to social/financial/political violence.
I know that it is not really politically on line. I should say this, because “violence resolves nothing”. Except it changed the destiny of a lot of nations of course…:beam:
In England we have managers, thanks to their incompetence and their greed, have ruins banks and companies. Thanks to them, hundred of thousands are losing their jobs, so their house, repossession happened more and more, families will end in the streets…
They’ve got the pension (even before they are at the age to get one, but…) and their bonuses.
One got his car vandalised. All the media and politicians came like a Roman Legion in Turtle formation to say it is not acceptable, that the laws bla bla bla.
So it is acceptable to through family in despair worries and incertitude but to scratch the car of one of the responsible is unacceptable…
The fact that to obtain their bonuses they just bluntly lie about how much they were successful is now obvious.:whip:
So why no one asks them to reimburse these bonuses obtained on fraud and false allegations?
Well, it could be because the one who could ask them to do so are the one they were at school with, the one they went in holidays with, they married their sisters…
Yes, we will have elections soon. Well, the English will, but as French I can’t vote. What choices my poor English comrades got? A Conservative Party which is at the root of the problem with the deregulation made by Thatcher, or the so-called (new) Labour party which never cut from this politic?
Corruption and money grabbing for MP (I can’t stop to laugh when the English Euro-sceptic speak about the corruption in Brussels…), blunders after blunders by high rank politicians, prices going up and Pounds going down, it smells Old Regime.
Will it be a Revolution? Do the English have the right to Revolution?
They are good reasons… :beam:
Just a thought that Banquo's post in this thread started. I thought it slightly more on topic here.
How common is there for senators and simular public figures have to step down before election time due to public outcry in the US?
Well, for a start the execution of the King by the Revolutionaries was utterly illegal and ghastly to say the least, as was our own execution of our King. It is never a good idea to destroy one head of state, because it leaves nothing but a head of state shaped vaccum. Usually filled but bad men, i.e Cromwell and Napoleon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The state of Britain at the moment is not enough to condone a revolution, I doubt it will ever warrant one, what is needed is a restructuring of government not destruction of it.
The Eurosceptic talks of the corruption in Brussels because it adds on to the stuff we already have to deal with, seems like a god reason to me.
“Well, for a start the execution of the King by the Revolutionaries was utterly illegal”. Illegal under which laws?:inquisitive:
The King of France was providing the plans of the French Army to her enemy, the Emperor of Austro-Hungary, his brother in law.
It is high treason in any country.
.
Tsk. A king cannot commit treason. L'état c'est moi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
:no: Revolutionaries. ~:rolleyes:
:wink:
“A king cannot commit treason. L'état c'est moi.”: Louis the XIV.
HOWEVER Louis the XVI was a Constitutional Monarch in 1792 (by the constitution of 1791 France became a Hereditary Constitutional Monarchy on the English model, more or less).
The 20 and 21st of June 1791, Louis and his familly tried to reach the Austrian Armies and are arrested at Varennes. Untill then the monarchy could still have a chance.
After the victory at Valmy 20th of September 1792, the Monarchy is abolished the 21st.
Based on the text produce by Jean Batiste Mailhe which give the reason by Louis the XVI can be prosecuted: “Voyons quels furent les vrais motifs et l'objet de l'inviolabilité royale; c'est le vrai moyen d'en saisir le vrai sens, et de juger si elle peut être opposée à la nation elle-même” : Let us see which were the real reasons and the purpose of royal inviolability; it is the true means of understanding the true meaning, and to judge if it can be conflicting to the nation itself).:book:
The 11th of December 1792, the trial of the Citoyen Capet (aka Louis the XVI) started. His lawyers François Denis Tronchet, Chrétien-Guillaume de Lamoignon de Malesherbes, Guy-Jean-Baptiste Target, and Raymond de Sèze did their best but the case was difficult , after the finding of a box full (the Iron cabinet; L’armoire de Fer, not sure of the translation) of letters between him and his brother in law, letters showing that he gave knowledge of the French Army positions, movements, strength and intentions. Louis was convinced to death for treason by the guillotine on the place public. :smash:
And others documentations proving without doubts he was engaged in activities to put the new regime down and to take back his old prerogatives… Can’t blame him but he lost.
The death penalty was voted by one voice in majority. And it was his brother’s, the Duke of Orleans, Phillip Egalité. The future Louis the XVIII just killed his brother…:beam:
21st of January 1793: Death by guillotine at 38 in nowadays Place de la Concorde. The executioner showed his head to the crowd which shouted: «Vive la nation ! Vive la république !» Long live the nation, long live the Republic.
The execution of monarch is always legally suspect and it is folly to execute one on such grounds, it is folly to execute any head of state. The executioners will always be much worse, what did France gain out of the revolution? Some good, the memeory of Republic, but what was that memory for most people in Europe, the Frencg included? Tyranny, bloodthirsty nationalism and brutal war, the French revolution is the perfect example of how not to conduct a revolution.
The idea that you must commit large numbers of state sanctioned murders in order to attain freedom, is reprehensible and not worthy of emulation. Surely you agree with this?
Agree? Not really, no. Can't break an omelet withou breaking an egg. Freedom comes with a price tag. Etcetera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
The French Revolution is the greatest gift Europe has ever received. Even if it's been a matter of two steps forward, one step back.
Even the British, despite stubbornly clinging on to the thought that they've not, have gradually adopted nearly all of the revolutionaries' ideas over the course of the past two centuries. :yes:
Nelson and what's-his-name could've saved themselves the trouble. They were fighting a lost cause. All the tyrants, that whole alliance of despots, merely postponed their fate by resisting the French liberation armies. Russia, Germany, Austria paid a hefty price later. When their tyrannical regimes fell, they fell all the harder. The bloodshed of the Revolutionary wars paled into comparison by the bloodshed created by the resistence to the revolution. I need not remind anyone of the painful road to democracy of Germany, Russia and Austria here, and the resulting bloodshed.
Britain itself managed a peaceful transition to democracy. Well done. However, subsequent wars against its erstwhile despotic allies proved very, very, costly to Britain. By any rational account, Britain should've supported the Revolution. The end result would've been the same, but without the needless loss of British blood.
Unless the bloody nature of your revolution prevented revolutions in other nations by scaring the populace, in which case France is culpable in the later and far more destructive transitions of the nations you listed.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Fortunately then, it did not. What it did do, was to sow the seeds of the liberal revolutions of 1830, 1848, 1860, 1871, 1905, 1917, 1968, 1989.
Scared were the despots. Awoken, beguiled and empowered by ideals was the populace, yearning for liberty and equality. It took all the despots of Europe twenty-five years to finally overcome the Revolution. This was too long. Victory was now ours, the fire was spread so far and near, and had burned so brightly, that it could never be extinguished ever again.
America got it right in one go, whereas the 'European liberal-national revolution' lasted from 1789-1989.
Alas, one can't blame revolutionary France for being on the right side of history! Unless one loves kings, feudalism, legal inequality, no codified human rights, one must admit not only the ultimate triumph, but also the desireability of this triumph.
No she didn't - indeed, one might have a good argument about whether Britain is still travelling the road to democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The English came up with the idea of executing a king under the guise of thinly justified legality before France, and after having quite a bloody Civil War on the finer points of "democracy" (otherwise known in these parts as the nobility keeping hold of their fortunes). France however, following suit, splendidly realised one had to eradicate the nobility properly for any real democracy - Britain got cold feet almost immediately once the nobility realised that they had accomplished not just another dynastic regicide, but undermined their own "divine" right by cutting the head off the fount of their legitimacy. They were right to appreciate that British kings had always depended far more on their nobles than the nobles depended on the king, but wrong to think they could dispense entirely with the crown. So they tried making Cromwell king, panicked when his scruples got in the way and shipped the heir back over into power before he was cold in his bed.
Then they spent some decades having the usual dynastic wars, blaming the Irish and the French. Even the usurpation of 1688 was about having a boringly pliable king on the throne to ensure the nobility some peace in which to prosper. The Act of Settlement had nothing much to do with democracy. For example, I'm pretty certain none of your Republics (or Empires) had the delightful adjunct to sensible governance known as the rotten borough.
It was only in 1999 that the aristocracy was largely removed from the House of Lords as part of the legislature, and there are still hereditary peers sitting. Let's not even mention lovely powers to over-ride rights under the royal prerogative.
The British, despite many rivers of blood, are still subjects, not citizens.
I don't think that gives a very accurate view of the aims of the Parliamentarians. Their support came from the lower gentry and townsolk. The royalists on the other hand had the backing of the nobles and the top merchants who wanted their monopolies protected. I don't see what the landed interests had to gain from the likes of the Levellers and Diggers getting into power, determined to return to a mythic Saxon past and throw off the 'Norman yoke' of feudalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
It did ensure a democratic church system for the Scots though, that was more important to them than the other pillar of society. Removing the "divine right" kings was also an important step, the Stuarts nearly made Britain the original absolutist monarchy after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
“The English came up with the idea of executing a king under the guise of thinly justified legality before France,”
Jean Baptiste Mailhe, in his legal advice showed the antecedents and with few examples including Charles the 1st.
One interesting paragraph: "All the kings of Europe persuaded to the stupidity of their nations that they hold their crown of the sky. They have accustomed them to look them like images of the Divinity who orders to men; to believe that their person inviolable and is holly, and can be reached by no law."
Now his opinion about the English precedent:
“One reproaches the Parliament of England for having desecrated the forms; but, in this respect, one does not get along commonly, and it is essential to make our mind on this famous lawsuit. Charles Stuart was sacred like Louis XVI; he had betrayed the nation which had put him on a throne independent from all the bodies established by the English constitution, he could not be accused nor be judged per none of them; it could be done only by the nation.
When he (Charles) was arrested, the House of Lords was all in his favour, only wanted to save the king and the royal despotism. The House of Commons seized and exercised of all the parliamentary authority, and undoubtedly it had the right in the circumstances of doing it at the times.
But the Parliament itself was only a Chamber. It did not represent the nation in the plenitude of its sovereignty. It represented it only through and by the constitution. It could thus neither judge the king, nor to delegate the right to judge it.
It should have done what did France. It should have ask the English nation to form a Convention. If the House of Commons had taken this way, it would have been the last hour of the royalty in England.
Never this famous publicity agent, which would be the first of the men if it did not have prostitute his feather to the apology for monarchy and the nobility*, would not have had the pretext of say that “it was a rather beautiful spectacle to see the impotent efforts of the English to restore among them the republic, to see the astonished people seeking the democracy and finding it nowhere; to see it finally, afterwards many movements, of the shocks and the jolts, forced to even rest in the government as it had proscribed”.
Unfortunately the House of Commons was directed by the genius of Cromwell, who, wanting to become king under the name of Protector, would have found in a national Convention the tomb for his ambition.
It is thus not the non-compliance with the procedures prescribed in England for the criminal judgements, but it is the defect of a national capacity/power, it is the protectorate of Cromwell, which threw on the lawsuit of Charles Stuart this odious that can be found recall in the most philosophical writings. Charles Stuart deserved death; but its torment could be ordered only by the nation or a court chosen by it.”
* I have no idea to whom he refers to…
Translation a bit er, difficult due to old way to write French...:sweatdrop:
Written laws, created by men, are fallible. Governments, created by men, are fallible.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
What we know to be right, by self-evident reasoning, such as disobeying an order to murder someone, such as not raping or stealing or contributing to some destructive force, is what we must do, regardless of the government or law. I refuse to be a slave nor do I recognize the legitimacy of slavery or murder.
If you don't like a government you can emigrate to another country. If they don't allow you to leave, then you can attempt to escape or perform civil disobedience. If the government is performing a mass crackdown on all resistance, or is mass murdering people, or a government has declared war on you, armed resistance in defense of liberty is possible without it being immoral.
It seems simple to me, anyway. Killing someone over taxes is not ok. Either pay your taxes, leave the nation in question, or get a majority to declare independence.
Well that part is completely wrong. Cromwell did not want to become King or have any similar position, otherwise why would he have gave the power he did to the Rump Parliament? Or model the later Barebones Parliament on the Sanhedrin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Also, had any such "ambition" existed to become Lord Protector, it would have been the nation that gave him it and not just the Parliament. Indeed, Cromwell and the Independents were by far the majority with the common people and the army, while the Political Presbyterians held power within Parliament.
Cromwell became a "tyrant" or "military dictator" because Parliament kept betraying the Commonwelath. For example it was Cromwell who objected to the Navigation Act which caused the Anglo-Dutch War of 1642 beacuse fighting against another Calvinist nation was clearly betraying a Parliament which was supposed to represent a 'Godly Republic', and was even formed with just 70 members to represent the Sanhedrin because they thought it was the end times!
Parliament betrayed the Commonwealth ideals, the New Model Army became the means through which Cromwell could restore them. Cromwell was not opposed to the idea of parliaments, but several particular Parliaments had acted against the Constitution.
“Well that part is completely wrong.” Perhaps. It is how a 17th Century French lawyer analysed it.
This text is part of a study why the French Assembly could put Louis the XVI on trial according to the law.
The problem was by the first Constitution, the King was exempt of all prosecutions.
So, Mailhe goes in a same kind of context to see why the French can do it, and what has to be avoided.
In his view, the fact that the British Parliament wasn’t elected by the English people, that there is no British Constitution was the flaw and the reasons why they went back to the Monarchy.
He thinks that Cromwell ambition was one of the reason as well for not having a Constitution fixing the frame of Powers.
Well, it is how I analyse his text.
He is in fact afraid of what will happen: Napoleon:beam:
The French Revolution became nothing but a blood orgy, it was a lamentable occurance for Europe as whole, leading to the greatest war the world had yet seen. France paid the highest price for its revolution, bled white by its constant wars, the loss of its preeminence forever among the European nations, and the re-imposition of a monarchy. Not very succesfull at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Nelson was fighting a dictatorship, not a republic.
“Nelson was fighting a dictatorship, not a republic.” Err, a Republic can be a dictatorship, nothing prohibits it.
And UK, Prussia, Russia were the beacon of democracy…:laugh4:
?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Napoleonic France was no Republic, it was a brutal, jingoistic millitarised state under the control of mad man whom actually though he could conquer Europe:laugh4:.
Aaah, Revolutionary France, a considerate Republic for the poeple, as long as those people were French and not espousing different views to those men in charge. Yes, very enlightened:yes:
“Napoleonic France was no Republic, it was a brutal, jingoistic millitarised state under the control of mad man whom actually though he could conquer Europe”.
Err, Napoleonic France was an Empire.:book:
It doesn’t means a Republic can’t be a dictatorship (see most recent examples: Chile, Portugal.Argentina, Iran, and the list is not limited…)
“Aaah, Revolutionary France, a considerate Republic for the people, as long as those people were French and not espousing different views to those men in charge. Yes, very enlightened”:
Can you explain? As long those people were French? In France? Or outside France?:dizzy2:
Because I think your knowledge the French Revolution is quite short if you think that what happened in Spain didn’t happened in France first during the first years…
It was a civil war… So to equal a new political situation to a civil war is a little bit intellectually dishonest…
It was a century of unjustice, France was part of it.
The English Gentry having the right to shoot anyone in their lands, that is enlighten… Or to torch houses to evict people…
The treatment and the deportation of the French Canadians from their lands is a great example of what the English Democratic Monarchy could do in term of “consideration for the people as long as these people were English and not espousing different view to those men in charge.”
And the very democratic Russian Empire where serfdom was still alive as the last freedom beacon…:beam:
It was more like a value added tax, IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I sometimes sympathise with people who rise up against their respective governments, but I don't think there's any "right to revolution" because I don't believe in natural law in general. Governments don't recognise the right to revolution and neither do they have any reason to. I wouldn't want my (relatively democratic) government taking a soft stance on sedition or treason either.
Don't be silly Louis, you French crave dictatorship. You only dump your autocrats when they become ineffective. France dumped both their First and Second Republic after only a few years, both to be replaced by hereditary dictatorships under Napoleons. The realisation that despotic monarchy isn't all that great only came through in 1870.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
“Don't be silly Louis, you French crave dictatorship.”
True, but we always disagree on the dictator, so we end in democracy when you can change your leaders every few years…:laugh4:
Revolution is never a right.
Revolution is your duty.