The right of revolution

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

When corruption not only happens within the government, but is institutionalised and accepted.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

An unfair tax and being taxed without representation are two different things.

If one believes in representative democracy, then surely the only unfair tax is one in which you are not represented?

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.

That's certainly a more consistent answer than "rebellion is only cool if we're doing it."

When corruption not only happens within the government, but is institutionalised and accepted.

If it was accepted, wouldn't there be no rebellion anyway?

Though with your definition, I'm going to go burn down the statehouse in Trenton. :D

[Rhyfelwyr]

If it was accepted, wouldn't there be no rebellion anyway?

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.

So while I have this right to revolution, I'm just too lazy to exercise it!

[rvg]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Brenus]

Right of Revolution: I quite sure that to guillotine the King was against the law…

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…

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.
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…

[Ironside]

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?

[Incongruous]

Right of Revolution: I quite sure that to guillotine the King was against the law…

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…

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.
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…

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.

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.