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

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



Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 4:54:19 AM)

quote:

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.

And what is a more personal gain than one's freedom?



meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 4:56:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

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.

And what is a more personal gain than one's freedom?



Freedom to exploit and steal other peoples resources is a fucked up way of defining freedom.



celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 7:06:05 AM)

quote:

Freedom to exploit and steal other peoples resources is a fucked up way of defining freedom.

Exploitation, much like oppression, exists in the mind of the exploited. 



meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 7:39:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Freedom to exploit and steal other peoples resources is a fucked up way of defining freedom.

Exploitation, much like oppression, exists in the mind of the exploited. 



OK I give in. Americans only think 9/11 was an atrocity but it wasn't really, the atrocity only exists in their mind.



jlf1961 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 8:05:48 AM)

Excuse me, but I must interject something here.

I grew up in a country where:
1) I could speak my mind without being put in jail.
2) I could read what I want, when I went (except for Hustler in a Catholic High School Biology class)
3) I could, can and do own firearms.
4) My home cannot be searched without cause... kinda sorta.
5) I can practice any religion.

Now, when any of those rights are being threatened by the government (Not Nuns, they are exempt from Constitutional Law) then I, and others like me, have the right to fight back.

If non-violent means fail, then we, by the very nature of being humans, have the right to take up armed resistance.

It was armed resistance that freed Cambodia from Pol Pot, the best modern example I can think of.

Now, given the simple fact that no matter how much a drill Sargent pounds the idea 'follow orders' into a recruits head, he is still a product of the United States, and has taken an oath to preserve the constitution. 

So, you can figure that a good number of troops would balk at suddenly being told that the civil rights they grew up with has been removed.




Musicmystery -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 8:07:34 AM)

Well, guys, you can always go to Somalia, which hasn't had a functioning government since 1991, and enjoy.



meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 8:14:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

It was armed resistance that freed Cambodia from Pol Pot, the best modern example I can think of.


It was violence from outside (US bombing of Cambodia) that created the conditions where Pol Pot could take power in the first place. After millions of dead the fact that further violence freed them becomes laughable. If there was no violence in the first place there would have been no Pol Pot.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, given the simple fact that no matter how much a drill Sargent pounds the idea 'follow orders' into a recruits head, he is still a product of the United States, and has taken an oath to preserve the constitution. 

So, you can figure that a good number of troops would balk at suddenly being told that the civil rights they grew up with has been removed.



I think you overestimate the strength of people and underestimate the evidence of mass psychology. The chances are, people won't resist. They never resisted to the removal of habeas corpus.



Satyr6406 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 8:30:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Excuse me, but I must interject something here.

I grew up in a country where:
1) I could speak my mind without being put in jail.
2) I could read what I want, when I went (except for Hustler in a Catholic High School Biology class)
3) I could, can and do own firearms.
4) My home cannot be searched without cause... kinda sorta.
5) I can practice any religion.

Now, when any of those rights are being threatened by the government (Not Nuns, they are exempt from Constitutional Law) then I, and others like me, have the right to fight back.

If non-violent means fail, then we, by the very nature of being humans, have the right to take up armed resistance.

It was armed resistance that freed Cambodia from Pol Pot, the best modern example I can think of.

Now, given the simple fact that no matter how much a drill Sargent pounds the idea 'follow orders' into a recruits head, he is still a product of the United States, and has taken an oath to preserve the constitution. 

So, you can figure that a good number of troops would balk at suddenly being told that the civil rights they grew up with has been removed.


Very nicely done. A very succinct answer to a question posed, earlier on in the thread ("What are God-given rights?").
 
Now ...
 
1) You still can (as long as you echo the "party line" and don't deviate from political correctness [witness my being labeled a "racist" because I called President-Elect Obama a socialist, in another thread]).
 
2) You still can (as long as the book/magazine/what-have-you isn't on the FBI watch list of possible terrorist/subversive publications [Yes, that list exists]).
 
3) You can no longer own fire-arms as everyone knows that we are immature children that can't handle that responsibility. Wrong thinking is punishable.
 
4) You're right, it can't except in cases of probable cause or exigent circumstances. (What a JOKE that is!)
 
5) You can, as long as it's not Christianity. They're bad people.
 
 



celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 8:38:08 AM)

quote:

I think you overestimate the strength of people and underestimate the evidence of mass psychology. The chances are, people won't resist. They never resisted to the removal of habeas corpus.

Your reading of history is incomplete and seriously flawed.

People will resist, and once, as Jefferson put it, there has been a "long train of abuses and usurpations," all it takes is a trigger to galvanize that resistance.

  • In 1775, the trigger was the British Army attempting to seize the weapons stores at Lexington and Concord, resulting in the American Revolution.
  • In 1986, the trigger was a ham-handedly rigged "snap" election to legitimize Ferdinand Marcos' rule over the Phillipines, resulting in the "People Power Revolution" that deposed Marcos'.
  • In 1989, the trigger was the eviction of dissident pastor Laszlo Tokes, resulting in the Romanian Revolution.

Regardless of how or why a government comes to be seen as oppressive, history shows that once government is seen as oppressive, all that is required is for the right trigger event to inspire the population to take action.




slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 9:01:26 AM)

Come on CL,lets be honest here.Meat has an agenda and never fails at trumpeting the party line ie:  western democracies ...bad.Capilitism...bad....America...BAD.So I'm not so sure his reading is incomplete or seriously flawed...as much as convenient.



celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 9:09:50 AM)

quote:

So I'm not so sure his reading is incomplete or seriously flawed...as much as convenient.

All of the above.  Convenient reading has an annoying habit of being incomplete and seriously flawed.



cpK69 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 9:10:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

At what point does it become right/prudent/proper to take up arms against the government and rebel? 


When considering an extreme action as a viable avenue for success, I find necessity to be the deciding factor.
 
Because of circumstances in the world today, I consider an action such as this to be a last resort, “Hail Mary” kind of attempt. It seems accurate to me that there is a time and place for everything. However, something tells me the time for such a thing may very well have passed.

quote:

Can any injustice by government be so reprehensible as to mandate the government's removal by force of arms?


Government along with ethical codes are the epitomes of injustice; false barriers to protect man from man. Government does exactly what it was intended to do.
 
Seems to me, the easiest means for removing power from government would be to stop giving it power; no force needed.
 
Kim



meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 9:48:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

I think you overestimate the strength of people and underestimate the evidence of mass psychology. The chances are, people won't resist. They never resisted to the removal of habeas corpus.

Your reading of history is incomplete and seriously flawed.

People will resist, and once, as Jefferson put it, there has been a "long train of abuses and usurpations," all it takes is a trigger to galvanize that resistance.
  • In 1775, the trigger was the British Army attempting to seize the weapons stores at Lexington and Concord, resulting in the American Revolution.



Most colonists watched which way the wind was blowing before they commited and then, many families had members fighting on both sides. Then the colonists that were empire loyalists had to escape to Canada to escape the pograms, while the loyalist indians went on the trail of tears. One man's freedom is another mans oppression, I guess you were right to a certain degree. I know the American popular myth portrays a popular uprising but if I was you I'd read your history again. American historians will give you the same account.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
  • In 1986, the trigger was a ham-handedly rigged "snap" election to legitimize Ferdinand Marcos' rule over the Phillipines, resulting in the "People Power Revolution" that deposed Marcos'.



You forgot to mention it took 20 years and huge corruption and human rights crimes first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
  • In 1989, the trigger was the eviction of dissident pastor Laszlo Tokes, resulting in the Romanian Revolution.



The trigger was the collapse of the USSR which prompted change throughout eastern Europe.


You forgot about the Iranians overthrowing the Anglo/American puppet regime and you don't mention the Iranians inability to overthrow the current cruel theocracy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Regardless of how or why a government comes to be seen as oppressive, history shows that once government is seen as oppressive, all that is required is for the right trigger event to inspire the population to take action.



If you are right, then why are the overwhelming majority of countries in the world dictatorships of various natures and only about 20% are free in the western capitalist sense of the meaning?

Because people resist and overthrow despotic governments?

I think you are wrong.



celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:06:14 AM)

quote:

You forgot to mention it took 20 years and huge corruption and human rights crimes first.

No, I didn't.  What else would you call that but a "long train of abuses and usurpations"?



philosophy -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:13:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


Exploitation, much like oppression, exists in the mind of the exploited. 



...this is true. It also exists in the actions of the exploiter or the oppressor, surely? Or are you arguing that responsibility only exists in ones response to events, and not ones actions that may cause events?



celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:19:30 AM)

quote:

...this is true. It also exists in the actions of the exploiter or the oppressor, surely? Or are you arguing that responsibility only exists in ones response to events, and not ones actions that may cause events?

I am arguing that "exploitation", like "oppression", is essentially a perceptual phenomenon.

What to the exploited counts as exploitation is, I suspect, "an offer he can't refuse" to the one exploiting.

This does not change the choice, the act, or the likely consequence to either entity.



philosophy -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:41:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


<snip>  I believe one of the most insidious methods used by people to gain control over other people is by the use of the meme that rights originate from a government. 

<snippage>

But in my mind, I have heard, and see no other formulation which will effectively stand up to constant attempts to define "rights" as anything other than inherent to each individual.


I much prefer the position that an individual has rights that are from outside the governments control, and that any act that a government takes to restrict or reduce those rights must be won with the full understanding or conditional trust of individuals, which (as I said) is temporary, revocable, and conditional.

<snip>

I'd be interested in hearing another argument that someone believes can successfully fulfill the same function.



....thanks for that Firm. Hope you don't mind that i've snipped a bit, but i wanted to focus on these areas in my reply.

The idea that 'rights' are inherant to an individual and are not conditional on ones nationality or government is one i can wholeheartedly agree with. i suppose we could call them 'God-given' rights, although in my mind it's a somewhat polarising piece of semantics. i prefer the term human rights. Rights that exist purely because of the fact of being a human.
Tabling the semantics of what we call these rights for the moment, i see two areas of difficulty. What, exactly, are these rights; and who gets to define/enforce them.
As you know from  our previous discussions i have few problems with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. i don't claim that it is perfect, but it's no more imperfect that any other attempt to deal with this problem i am aware of.

In the context of the OP, we're really only dealing with enforcement. Clearly the individual has a right to do whatever they can to secure and hold their rights, whether we call them human rights or God-given rights. i am a fan of extra-national courts in this regard. In the EU the European Court of Human Rights has done some excellent work. If a member state of the EU wants the economic benefits of being a member they are also duty bound to abide by the rulings of said court. While this may not work with a government that employs pure tyranny, what it does do is mitigate against a member state taking the first steps on the road to that tyranny. Essentially, it is an ounce of prevention......which as we all know is better than a pound of cure.
i look forward to your response  [:)]




philosophy -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:46:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

...this is true. It also exists in the actions of the exploiter or the oppressor, surely? Or are you arguing that responsibility only exists in ones response to events, and not ones actions that may cause events?

I am arguing that "exploitation", like "oppression", is essentially a perceptual phenomenon.

What to the exploited counts as exploitation is, I suspect, "an offer he can't refuse" to the one exploiting.

This does not change the choice, the act, or the likely consequence to either entity.



...ok, i am a little confused. On the one hand you seem to be arguing for relative ethics, but then at the end you hint at absolute ethics.
On the basis that extreme situations allow us to see subtle dynamics more clearly, let's consider the Holocaust of WWII. Those in the concentrationcamps were clearly oppressd. Hindsight alone lets us see that. Now, were those who put them there oppressors? If they didn't see themselves as oppressors why can we treat them as if they were oppressors? It seems to me that there is more than mere perceptual issues here.



meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:49:17 AM)

He's confused.



celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:50:33 AM)

quote:

...ok, i am a little confused. On the one hand you seem to be arguing for relative ethics, but then at the end you hint at absolute ethics.

As regards my observations on the nature of exploitation and oppression, I'm not discussing ethics at all.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875