RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable?

RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 6:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darias quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Armed struggle is justifiable at any time when the government does not honor my God given rights. ..in the interests of clarity, what do you mean by 'God-given rights'? you had to ask didnt ya Funny. Kinda. But you are making assumptions about others that show a degree of prejudicial thinking. I've read some of your recent posts, and hoped that you are more intellectually open than that. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 6:07:38 PM)
Aww ,come on Firm he was just being funny,I myself chuckled.

FirmhandKY -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 6:10:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Aww ,come on Firm he was just being funny,I myself chuckled. I agree (I said "Funny" didn't I? [:)]). I am attempting to draw him out in conversation to see if it was a truly held position, or if he was just going for the quick chuckle. Firm

OrionTheWolf -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 6:19:12 PM)
As the last resort to unjust or oppresive actions by the government. In the US we have many other avenues before this would be needed, but it should always be there as a last resort. quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 I raised this question in MusicMystery's "well regulated" topic, and he suggested it merited its own topic. So I throw the question out to one and all: At what point does it become right/prudent/proper to take up arms against the government and rebel? Can any injustice by government be so reprehensible as to mandate the government's removal by force of arms?

Satyr6406 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 6:41:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 Governments will ... always degrade into bureaucracies and tyrannies. I've taken the liberty of correcting your words. [:D] Firm Ya know, I agonized over whether or not to include the qualifier in there because I was sure if I made it an ABSOLUTE statement, someone would come up the a government that hadn't "gone bad" and I would be lambasted for that!

pahunkboy -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 6:49:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Rebellion is justified when the majority threatens the life and safety of a minority. Why just "life and safety"? Why not liberty? There have been several reports of rioting and destruction of private property following the passage of Proposition 8 in California--while this was not organized "rebellion", is such violence justifiable because the majority of people in that state choose to write into their constitution a definition of marriage? Oh come on. No ones property was destroyed. Just a bunch of whining. all faked. another mode of the lady that cut her face up over the election. one should set out champagne glasses in a room full of neanderthals.

celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 6:50:26 PM)
quote: I agree with you there, Michael. That's why I baulk at the sweeping idea that all we have to do is allow armed rebellion and all is well. Armed rebellion hardly qualifies as "all is well." Armed rebellion would mean by almost any definition "all is NOT well." Hopefully, armed rebellion would amount to "all really sucks but it is about to get better." However, there is no guarantee of that. The antidote to tyranny may well develop a new form of despotism--we should never forget that George Washington was offered a crown and rejected the idea of being a monarch over the fledgling United States. Yet, if there has been, in the words of Jefferson, a "long train of abuses and usurpations," if there has been a steady erosion of rights and liberty beyond what the individual man ought to withstand in good conscience, what remedy is there if not by force of arms? "Merely" allowing the potential for revolt is not a panacea. It is the last best bad decision, reserved for when no other means to restore liberty will suffice. As the Preamble of the Constitution makes clear, as the Bill of Rights affirms, rights and liberty transcend government. Rights and liberty are the precursor to government, not the outcome. I am not surprised that the framers of the Constitution surmised that rights and liberty would endure past the ending of the government they architected that summer of 1787 in Philadelphia.

pahunkboy -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 6:59:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou I think rebellion would be justified now. I mean seriously, the government does not serve the interests of the people. It has violated every aspect of the rules, we all agreed upon, the constitution. It has stolen the peoples money and given it to select groups (financials, big corps). It has a proven track record of deceiving the US public in order to garner support for unjustified wars. The list is endless really. Oh, yeah, and the machines we use to vote, are complete crap, there was a documentary on HBO, to where it took a hacker all of a half an hour to break it and reprogram it, to give the result he wanted. So, the government can't even be trusted with forming a trustworthy means of voting. What the hell. Ummm, better question would be, what reason do the US people have not to revolt. I agree! Do people even realize what is in store for us? Absolutely chilling. But now- consider even the congressional grillings...ok- so the dude gets verbally grilled. not bad for billions of $. a nagging lecture line of questioning- ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that will stop em. shockingly the other 1/2 of the bail out will happen despite the stage show. As Lyndon Larouche says, if you want to get people up on their hind legs- tell them there is NO FOOD for THEIR table in the morning. People will KILL for food. The ballot box is a joke. WHo was voted out for doing the bail out????? and even if we all got real mad... what would we do? destroy our village like they did Watts, 2 times??? that wouldnt benefit anyone. being that no one get punished for treason- it keeps getting worse. Iraq was bad, katrina is bad- and this is bader . katrina is coming to all of us. we are comfortable now- but we soon will be as katrina folks were.

FirmhandKY -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 8:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 Governments will ... always degrade into bureaucracies and tyrannies. I've taken the liberty of correcting your words. [:D] Firm Ya know, I agonized over whether or not to include the qualifier in there because I was sure if I made it an ABSOLUTE statement, someone would come up the a government that hadn't "gone bad" and I would be lambasted for that! You'll get lambasted no matter what you say. Might as well be lambasted for being a goat, as for being a sheep. I strongly suspect that no such government can exist. Any government which might be put forward, I'd say two things in return: 1. History continues, (this takes care of all current governments) 2. The fall of a government which might otherwise have qualified is just an example of a government which did not have the time to eventually "degrade into bureaucracies and tyrannies" (and, parenthically, it's fall is in itself an example of the very rule which you stated). (This takes care of any historical example). Firm

DomKen -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 8:07:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Rebellion is justified when a minority forces its rule on the majority. Rebellion is justified when the majority threatens the life and safety of a minority. Interesting. I see no formulation that rebellion is justified when the majority forces it rule on a minority. Is the majority always right? Firm The majority is not always right but a minority is never justified in placing itself in charge by violence.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 8:12:21 PM)
Effectively, the sale of such items tends to be self-regulating. Not due to lack of Interest - due to lack of Funding. There are many such items - from tanks to 2 seat fighter capable jets, etc - which the companies that produce them would likely be more than willing to sell to a private citizen. Provided, of course, the private citizen can pay the multi-million dollar price tag per item that the government currently pays for such. With the exception of folks like Bill Gates (who can already afford to hire a private army if he were of a mind to do so) not many could afford the price tag for the hardware.

NorthernGent -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 10:32:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Never. It has to be done at the ballot box. In the event 30% of people agree with you and 70% do not, then your rebellion is forcing the 70% to agree with your version of freedom. In the event 70% agree with you, then you should be fine at the ballot box. So the 30% are at the mercy of the 70%? Do you allow for a tyranny of the majority? At the mercy? I'd call it a reasonable disagreement between adults. Where the majority do not agree with you, and vote as such at the ballot box, then it's a case of 'win some, lose some'; and the answer is to format a more credible argument rather than resort to violence and coercion. Out of curiosity, what % of the population's support do you require to enable you to resort to violence in order to effect a change of government: 20%, 40%, 60%?

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 10:34:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweedydaddy The two biggest losses to the British Empire, those of America and Ireland initially came about through armed insurrection, so I suppose it might be seen as a good thing. I think to lose one colony might be seen as understandable, but to lose both looks like carelesness. Only We and the Romans know what it's like. The American colonies were financially crippling Britain, money was flooding out of Britain and across the Atlantic at a rate Britain couldn't afford which is why it tried to introduce stamp duty in the colonies. When rebelion started if Britain was acting rationally it would have said OK, goodbye, have a nice time. Britain's trading deficit with the colonies was so huge, after US independence when Britain stopped importing from the colonies, it suddenly found itself rich and dynamic and went on to forge and empire. As the saying goes 'Lost a colony, found an empire.' As for Ireland, it was no great loss, it was a loss of face to the ruling classes but no one else (maybe to the protestants of Ireland and Scotland). With the rise of socialism in Britain, the last thing the British ruling class needed was a stroppy Ireland. After WWII, the post war socialist government in Britain was determined to get rid of the empire because the empire was an anathema to the socialists. Even if Britain saw a rightwing government, it could hardly hold on to the empire when it claimed WWII was about fighting for freedom. Which we know it wasn't, it was about fighting for survival.

UncleNasty -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 10:44:37 PM)
As I see it we have a judicairy that does not rule in accordance with the laws and the people have no peaceful I know of to hold them accountable. Judicial immunity has always been a big mistake. We also have a congress that refuses to do its job and actually represent there constituents. This has been the case for some time now, but the vote on the TARP bailout is a recent example. Congress no longer writes our laws. That job has been handed over to lobbiests. Heck, congress doesn't even read the laws they vote on. Our last executive did a lot of shredding of the constitution. You know that document he swore an oth to protect. My question is how tight does the noose around your neck have to be before you realize you're being hanged? Uncle Nasty

celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 1:17:36 AM)
quote: Out of curiosity, what % of the population's support do you require to enable you to resort to violence in order to effect a change of government: 20%, 40%, 60%? That's a good question. I don't know of a good answer off the top of my head. Flippant answer would be: enough to win.

Darias -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 2:00:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD How many tanks or airplanes did the IRA have? different circumstances.... the IRA at the time were fighting an occupying force... most of the occupiers were centralised in barricks etc. from a revolutionary point of view specificly in my example of the US the sides would be A all local B have access to local armories and C be fighting their neighbours quote: ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach Effectively, the sale of such items tends to be self-regulating. Not due to lack of Interest - due to lack of Funding. There are many such items - from tanks to 2 seat fighter capable jets, etc - which the companies that produce them would likely be more than willing to sell to a private citizen. Provided, of course, the private citizen can pay the multi-million dollar price tag per item that the government currently pays for such. With the exception of folks like Bill Gates (who can already afford to hire a private army if he were of a mind to do so) not many could afford the price tag for the hardware. and therin lies the catch 22 the goverment could make it legal for citizens to buy precisely the same equipment it does. but unless it gave huge tax rebates on stinger missiles and squad operated weapons the actual legaliy wouldnt matter. those who could afford them (mr gates was given as an example ) would probably be more inclined to share their new toys with the sitting goverment and not those seeking to smash the chair quote: "God-given rights" is not necessarily a religious proclamation. To me, it is a required logical and rhetorical position to protect the individual from tyranny. It is one of the reasons that I've said several times that I am "Christian friendly". quote: Funny. Kinda. But you are making assumptions about others that show a degree of prejudicial thinking. I've read some of your recent posts, and hoped that you are more intellectually open than that. Firm ok so i was suckered into assuming your response would be a god fearing rant with the usual highpoints we have grown accustomed to expecting when the words "god given" are used and yes rather than echo Philo`s request for a clarification or make a preemptive attack i chose the cheap laugh road I consider myself to be as "religion friendly" as many with the exception of those who canonise the catholic church and/or attempt to convince me my distrust of said church is baseless. and when someone uses the "god given" phrase in that context yes a certain amount of prejudice comes forward. due mainly from having heard the normal follow ups before and in honesty being entirely sick of them. my thanks for following up Philo`s polite request with an even politer response and not the expected tirade as for any "god given rights" we may or may not have... the human rights organisation has listed quite completly in my opinion what we can and cannot expect to be due to us simply because we exist whether those rights are given to us by a higher being of phenominal cosmic power or by collective agreement of our neighbourly fellow human beings seems like a topic for another time Darias

Darias -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 2:09:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Out of curiosity, what % of the population's support do you require to enable you to resort to violence in order to effect a change of government: 20%, 40%, 60%? That's a good question. I don't know of a good answer off the top of my head. Flippant answer would be: enough to win. that one is a seriously scary answer... 4 would be enough to win 4 people with the clearance and knowledge to bypass the security of most members of government.... would be all it took for atleast a change in said govenment and im shutting up on this topic before the secret service analyists decide i have thought about this too much

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 4:33:15 AM)
General point. We make the assumption on this thread that governments must be bad for the people to take up arms which is not always so, sometimes its just an idea which its time has arrived and a regime has no answers to it and most of the time it is not the weak and the poor that take up arms in the first place but the middleclasses that have aspirations. One could include in this list, the English Civil war (which was really a revolution), the ancient regime in France fell, not so much because of the poverty of the Paris mobs but because the regime didn't cater for the aspirations of the middleclasses, the British weren't oppressive in the colonies but the colonies had matured into a country in its own right and its middleclasses wanted to govern themselves.

celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 4:43:34 AM)
quote: We make the assumption on this thread that governments must be bad for the people to take up arms which is not always so Oppression lies in the minds of the oppressed. Whether government is "bad" or "good" is immaterial. What is relevant is that a government is "bad/good for me."

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 4:49:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: We make the assumption on this thread that governments must be bad for the people to take up arms which is not always so Oppression lies in the minds of the oppressed. Whether government is "bad" or "good" is immaterial. What is relevant is that a government is "bad/good for me." I think people can and are, often more base and venal than that. It is rather like the term 'fighting for freedom' is often used by governments as a euphemism for fighting wars of aggression so it is oftrn with fighting the oppression of ones government.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02