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

philosophy -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:53:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 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. I'm not discussing ethics at all. .....i don't see how a discussion of exploitation and oppression can avoid the topic of ethics. Without an idea of north and south, compasses are meaningless. Without an idea of ethics, terms like exploitation and oppression are also meaningless.

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:58:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 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"? I think your whole outlook has been formed by Hollywood because you conveniently forget 80% of the world lives under dictatorships of one sort and another and even the so called free nations such as the US and the UK have had universal sufferage for less than a century, which means they have only been free in the modern sense of the word for less than 100 years.

Stusmobile -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 10:58:43 AM)
When you win - todays terrorist is tomorrows freedom fighter is next weeks terrorist.

celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 11:03:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stusmobile When you win - todays terrorist is tomorrows freedom fighter is next weeks terrorist. Actually, that's very true.

celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 11:07:02 AM)
quote: .....i don't see how a discussion of exploitation and oppression can avoid the topic of ethics. Ultimately, this is not a discussion of exploitation and oppression. Yes, an exploration of either will touch on ethics, but, within the framework of my original posting, it is sufficient to acknowledge their perceptual aspect and move on.

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 11:14:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stusmobile When you win - todays terrorist is tomorrows freedom fighter is next weeks terrorist. That's because most people don't mind violence as long as it's someone else that is suffering and/or they profit from it. Most violence has absolutely nothing to do with freedom.

NorthernGent -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 11:56:31 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. a) You believe majority rule, by means of the ballot box and reason, is tyranny. b) You believe majority rule (assuming you need a majority to 'win'), by means of violence and coercion, is acceptable. Majority rule, or rule where you take control by means of a small force, is common to both a and b; the distinguishing factor is violence versus reason. To be blunt, it seems you can't win through reason, so you want to win through coercion. Now that, in any man's language, is tyranny: right out of the Robespierre school of "we must force the people to be free" thought. There is an underlying disconnect here: you have big ideas; the majority of people simply want to get their heads down, feed their families and live some sort of peaceful existence.

celticlord2112 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 12:49:32 PM)
quote: a) You believe majority rule, by means of the ballot box and reason, is tyranny. I do not believe that it is, but I can see where it may become tyranny.

NorthernGent -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/17/2008 1:44:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: a) You believe majority rule, by means of the ballot box and reason, is tyranny. I do not believe that it is, but I can see where it may become tyranny. ''At the mercy of the majority'' was a bold statement, and one insinuating tyranny. Regardless, an example of ''where it may become tyranny'' would be useful.

Lumizen -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/18/2008 11:52:41 AM)
Speaking as an American, the qualification for armed rebellion has already been put to paper in one of the most incredible documents ever written, the Declaration of Independence. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Early thoughts: 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. And, the perceived stupidity of the 70% is not a reasonable justfication to force them to be free. The short-term answer: accept the limitations of mankind, and do not expect your countrymen to render themselves beholden to your standards. The long-term answer for those who believe there is a problem that needs solving: Liberalism. Only an educated population can govern themselves, and the goal of an educated population necessitates redistribution of wealth. It's not pretty for some; it's unpalatable for many: let's call it the lesser of two evils and a spot of short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. During the American revolution, there were less than 10% of the populace involved in the event at any given time. As far as support, it was approximately 30%, and nearly the same number that were loyalists, with the rest not really having an opinion one way or the other so long as they were kept fat, dumb and happy. (parallel for today?) I do agree with you on your theoretical parallel between majority rule in both violent and peaceful change. Of course, peaceful transition is preferable, nobody in any sort of right mind would wish to be plunged into human combat. However, when the powers that be have achieved such a stranglehold upon the mechanisms of power that it makes change impossible, and usurps the will of the people with no accountability to them, or else sells its intents with dishonest PR that would be the envy of 1938 Germany, it is the responsibility of those that are aware to save those that are not. No, 70% of the people are not stupid. I would place that at closer to 30% - 40%. The rest are a combination of ignorant, or blind followers of the lies that they have been told (insert your very apt quote on tradition here), or also as you said, so busied in just trying to make a good life for their families that they can't be bothered with matters of state. It would be nice if we did have an informed, educated populace that did all have an opinion of their own on every important matter.. but the fact is that we don't, and we never will. Realistically, about 10% of the people will make the rules for the other 90%... I choose to be in that 10%, and I know what side I fight on. And Northern; Your definition of 'liberalism' (The modern one, also referred to as 'Progressivism', and confusing it with 'Classical Liberalism'. Classical Liberalism has absolutely NO redistributionist rhetoric in its definition, has the impossible utopian goal of pure Anarchy, and is closest to its realistic brother Libertarianism) sounds suspiciously like Socialism, the realistic attempt at its Utopian pipedream of Communism. It has been tried. It fails each and every time it is tried. Human nature itself makes it as impossible as Anarchy to maintain. Taking the resources from those that produce, and handing it freely to those that do not, is the quickest way to eviscerate all productivity in a nation. I'm not saying that there aren't changes that need to be made; there are. Most of them involve deregulation that remove subsidies and sweetheart deals to certain companies and industries, and the strengthening of other 'anti-trust' policies that have been weakened in recent decades. Yes, I realize these are two entirely different things, but this is why I'm not a (pure) anarchist. Water seeks its own level when it is left alone to do so as nature intended. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best thing that anyone has ever come up with, and it it how the US rose to the top of the food chain at one time. Where she sits now, I'll leave to another debate. "The tree of liberty must be refershed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike" -Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, 1759

NorthernGent -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/18/2008 3:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lumizen However, when the powers that be have achieved such a stranglehold upon the mechanisms of power that it makes change impossible, and usurps the will of the people with no accountability to them, or else sells its intents with dishonest PR that would be the envy of 1938 Germany, it is the responsibility of those that are aware to save those that are not. This is the exact same logic that underpinned the Russian, French and Iranian revolutions (add to that list the left-wing coups in Africa, post 1960s). Ultimately, those revolutions and coups are tyrannical in nature and evolve into chaos: where you need to take control by force, you need to maintain it by force. Furthermore, the 'unaware' are no more inclined to live by the laws of an enlightened mind, than a cat is inclined to live by the laws of a lion; it follows thus the 'unaware' will have to be coerced by your expeditionary force. Now, based on your post, you and I see the same problems in modern politics. It's a bitter pill to swallow when you think you have it sewn up, but your fellow countrymen do not care much for your idea; yet the right to hold an opinion built on dubious foundations is one that shouldn't be removed at gun point from a self-proclaimed, enlightened mind. quote: ORIGINAL: Lumizen Taking the resources from those that produce, and handing it freely to those that do not, is the quickest way to eviscerate all productivity in a nation. In my view, an educated population is the answer, and this requires redistribution of wealth. You may call it Socialism, that's fine. quote: ORIGINAL: Lumizen "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, 1759 It would be the case were 3 people voting; there's far less chance of 60 million people making an irrational decision such as devouring your lamb. Edited to add: I agree that Communism is utopian in nature; I'll venture that the idea we'll all morph into virtuous, self-regulating human beings if only the government will just leave us alone, is, similarly, utopian in nature. Ultimately, the government is made of the same stock as your average man on the street; human frailty abounds.

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 1:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lumizen Speaking as an American, the qualification for armed rebellion has already been put to paper in one of the most incredible documents ever written, the Declaration of Independence. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." I think Americans should read their own history before they spout on about it. Colonists were so under the thumb each state had its own assembly, not interfered with by the British governor and just about every colonist was armed to the teeth. Hardly a state of being oppressed. The reason for the colonies seeking independence was that they had matured into a state and some of its leading figures wanted to take full control of the colonies and some didn't, which was why colonists fought on both sides. Many of the abuses and usurptions were only real in propaganda terms. When a people are enslaved, they don't have the where with all to fight back, why do you think it took so long for black Americans to win a modicum of freedom? Blacks were the only Americans that were being abused and usurped and Indians who were having their land stolen. 95+% white colonists didn't pay tax or anything else to the Brits, in fact, Britain funded the colonies which drove Britain to bankruptcy and had such a massive trade deficit with the colony, it had to sdo something which was introducing stamp duty which never happened but gave the rebel leaders more propaganda. Most new citizens of the new USA had less rights under the new regime than under the British and the new government levied swingeing taxes which never entered the minds of the British whose government was instinctively liberal and anti-tax. I can't remember which American writer it was now but I read a book where it was said of the founding fathers 'They wrote like angels and schemed like demons.' which is pretty accurate. One has to ask why didn't Australia, New Zealand or Canada rebel when they were under the same yoke (while incidently like wise being armed to the teeth). Because they never had leaders that wanted to consolidate power for themselves. The truth was, colonists could rebel, precisely because they weren't slaves. Now if we are talking about a nation enslaved by a tyranny, look no further than 1930s Germany. The Nazis had long planned a takeover and when they saw their chance they took it and had all the state levers of power in their control and were rounding up opposition leaders within 24 hours. The media feeding the population 24 hours a day with no other news getting through and should anyone show the slightest desent, they were liquidated. The population can't organize a rebelion even if it could get a true perception of what was happening in the country. That was true tyranny, not the US colonies. In fact there have been several studies on rebelion and each population map, probably only have between 1-2% of its people that have the personality to initiate a rebelion, if a regime can correctly decide who they are and eliminates them, it won't have a problem keeping the rest of the population in line. The US I would imagine is no different, despite all the bullish talk from other population groups when it comes to personality type. quote: ORIGINAL: Lumizen Water seeks its own level when it is left alone to do so as nature intended. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best thing that anyone has ever come up with, and it it how the US rose to the top of the food chain at one time. Where she sits now, I'll leave to another debate. The US rose to the top of the food chain like every other western country, through theft and exploitation of other people's resources or have you forgot about 'Manifest Destiny'? Have you forgot how American labour was exploited by the capitalists and lived in deseased ridden ghettoes like their European counterparts? Now western countries have to compete with other nations that are learning the dark arts of exploitation, they aren't doing so well. quote: ORIGINAL: Lumizen "The tree of liberty must be refershed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike" -Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Actually it was Edward Larson who said, 'They wrote like angels and schemed like demons.' in regard to the 1800 US election in regard to Jefferson, Adams, Burr etc and their invention of every dirty political trick in the book that are still with us to this day.

corysub -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 2:50:40 AM)
I don't believe "rebellion" is an alternative to changing government that works in a modern society. If you are in a lesser developed country than it could be considered. Communications, security services, and availablity of instant reaction forces in Westernized countries would crush any armed rebellion. A democracy doesn't need "rebellion" to change, political leadership would do as well, and that is the beauty of the American system, for example. It doesn't mean,however, that a new leadership bringing the change couldn't be a radical with a lot of charisma as we have seen in the past and the "change" is what the populace expects. While "rebellion" seems an exciting alternative to the young who are naturally against most things and have been forever, only an idiot would take up arms like he was a minuteman on the bridge in Concord. Some tried it in our country in the 1960's and, thankfully, were crushed.

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 9:50:51 AM)
Meat before you suggest that others read their history,perhaps you might want to yourself.Start with the Coercive Acts known in America as the Intolerable Acts.Or as a shortcut you could read a list of the greivences as ennumerated by the Colonists themselves in the text of the Declaration of The First Continental Congress. If your not careful meat some might get the idea you bring an anti- American bias to the table.

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 11:06:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Meat before you suggest that others read their history,perhaps you might want to yourself.Start with the Coercive Acts known in America as the Intolerable Acts.Or as a shortcut you could read a list of the greivences as ennumerated by the Colonists themselves in the text of the Declaration of The First Continental Congress. If your not careful meat some might get the idea you bring an anti- American bias to the table. I have, extensively and I have read all the background. Such as it was illegal to smelt steel in the colonies yet the colonies smelted far more steel than Britain and even exported it to Britain. Just about all the coercive laws were ignored by Britain who more or less let the colonies govern themselves. Adams had personal grievances against the British through his father money dealing. Hell, its all too boring to list, there has been enough books on it published and its been covered extensively. However, that fact they were on the statute books gave the rebels ample popaganda. Personally I think, if the British had any sense they would have withdrawn and let the colonies be independent because of the financial drain they were but rationality seldom enters into such politics. If it wasn't for the Imperial wars with France and Spain that were taking place, the British would probably have let the colonies be independent. It was a stupid war and equivalent to the British that Vietnam was to the US. Little support for the war at home, no strategy and no idea what to do with the place should they have won.

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 11:09:34 AM)
And yet you seem to have managed to miss the point entirely...amazing."When in the course of human events...and all that.

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 11:13:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And yet you seem to have managed to miss the point entirely...amazing."When in the course of human events...and all that. It was a minority. The minority chose violence on behalf of the majority. If you believe it is alright for the majority to choose violence on behalf of the majority then anything goes. Winning is what makes something legitimate.

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 11:15:39 AM)
They tried talking first meat ,they sent an appeal to the King...his response was ,shall we say less than they had hoped for.

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 11:18:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u They tried talking first meat ,they sent an appeal to the King...his response was ,shall we say less than they had hoped for. Yes, but it was still a privileged minority that was taking the task in their own hands, that was why they were able to discuss their case as equals and why 50% of the British parliament supported the rebels. The uprising wasn't popular as made out in the US national myth. I read in one American book that the talks supposed to fail which has been hotly contested idea but with logic, if there is logic in such events.

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/19/2008 11:31:57 AM)
Yes Meat a privelidged minority that risked all for the right to shed the shackles that no longer served the minority that were bound by them.They were the ones who would've swung from the gallows if things had gone the other way.Rarely in the course of human events will all decide at the same time on a course necessary for the good of all.We could keep going round and round on this...but given your anti American bias it is a futile exercie....so I wish you luck and bid you farewell till next time .

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625