toldailytopic: At what point is a revolution justified? (what is the moral criteria)

[musterion]

I think you're just being silly.

I understand that the terms may be more easily conflated when talking about the history of the US,

Who did you think was going to talk to you, Sumerians?

but consider terms like the industrial revolution and the technological revolution. On a broad, international scope, the terms are easily distinguished and one in no way implies the other.

What's the context of this thread - technology?

And I'm the one being silly.

No disrespect intended, man, but stick to evolution, it's your strength.

 

[rocketman]

And I would contend that every instance of an action being right and proper should not be called a rebellion.

A revolution, certainly, but rebellion is always bad.

In the case of the U.S. one preceded the other, rebellion brought forth revolution. It is not as if the colonists just woke up one day and said lets have a revolution, there was rebellion first. Remember the Boston tea party? and prior to the outset of the revolution the King put forth a proclamation of rebellion & sedition against the colonies. Rebellion is not all bad and the fruit that came after rebellion & revolution was a good thing for the people as a whole.

God does not institute governments, He instituted the concept of governance, i.e. that people life well when they live according to a hierarchy of authority. He expects us to learn how to do that properly. We have failed miserably for the most part.

This is certainly something I can agree with you on. :cheers:

 

[Stripe]

Our president does not sit in The Virgin Islands, Samoa, Puerto Rico, or Guam either, does that mean the laws of the United States do not prevail there?

No.

I think it is obvious that the US is established on those places.

The British established the colonies under British rule, to rebel against that was to rebel against the king himself, thus we had a revolution to break our bonds of British rule. A rebellion against the established governing authority or "proper authority" at the time if you will.

Perhaps our disagreement is over the "established" nature of the British empire on the then-colonies.

Did the colonies swear allegiance to the king, or did they want to establish their own government?

 

[rocketman]

No.

I think it is obvious that the US is established on those places.

And you think British rule was not established for 100 years or better before the rebellion and eventual revolution? The British government was well established prior to these actions by the colonies.

Perhaps our disagreement is over the "established" nature of the British empire on the then-colonies.

Seems so.

Did the colonies swear allegiance to the king, or did they want to establish their own government?

Being they were his subjects when they arrived in the new world, the kings laws were law of the land and the colonists were flying the union jack prior to the rebellion I would say yes.

 

[Stripe]

And you think British rule was not established for 100 years or better before the rebellion and eventual revolution?

History shows that it clearly wasn't.

Being they were his subjects when they arrived in the new world, the kings laws were law of the land and the colonists were flying the union jack prior to the rebellion I would say yes.

That was supposed to be a rhetorical question.

I think they clearly had not sworn any allegiance. The colonists moved to a new land, the king tried to retain his sway over them and failed.

There was a revolution with the Declaration of Independence and no rebellion because what they did was justified.

Are you seriously at odds with me on this?

 

[kmoney]

If someone attempts to take anything from me by force [mugging], I have no way of knowing my wallet is all he is after and I would not wait to find out in this case nor would I restrain myself from taking his life to find out his intentions.

I want to go back to my other questions, if you're willing.

You posted this to Stripe: What about when the government steals and is lawless?

How are you defining theft and lawlessness in this context of governments and revolutions?

 

[rocketman]

History shows that it clearly wasn't.

Well I guess that depends on what history book you read.

That was supposed to be a rhetorical question.

I think they clearly had not sworn any allegiance. The colonists moved to a new land, the king tried to retain his sway over them and failed.

There was a revolution with the Declaration of Independence and no rebellion because what they did was justified.

Clearly they were the Kings loyal subjects when they settled the new world, in fact the first colony Jamestown was named after the King James I, and as said before they were loyal to the crown until the kings demands became tyrannical which brought forth rebellion which the King acknowledged and the eventual Declaration of independence then revolution. To say no rebellion against the ruling authority existed is absurd, in fact many opposed a new government and stayed loyal to the crown during the revolution as well.

Are you seriously at odds with me on this?

At odds with you? No but, I see your version of American history and mine are quite askew, that doesn't mean I have not enjoyed the exercise of understanding your position or proposing mine. Discussion is why we are here, we don't always have to agree fully for it to be fruitful.

 

[rocketman]

I want to go back to my other questions, if you're willing.

You posted this to Stripe: What about when the government steals and is lawless?

How are you defining theft and lawlessness in this context of governments and revolutions?

It was strictly a rhetorical question to spark conversation on this subject Kmo. Clearly, our forefathers saw overtaxation as theft at some point, as well as the actions of the king being lawless & tyrannical. It is interesting that many of the same concerns come to mind with our current government today...there is nothing new under the sun it seems.

 

[rocketman]

Who would have thought a 4 year old thread would get so lively? :think:

 

[kmoney]

It was strictly a rhetorical question to spark conversation on this subject Kmo. Clearly, our forefathers saw overtaxation as theft at some point, as well as the actions of the king being lawless & tyrannical. It is interesting that many of the same concerns come to mind with our current government today...there is nothing new under the sun it seems.

:chuckle: That's fine. And I'm asking you questions to hopefully spark more conversation. Yes, the founders of our nation thought the British gov't was getting too oppressive. And you have said you support the American revolution so you must agree with them. Can you say specifically why you think the British gov't was so tyrannical that a war was justified? Where is that tipping point, like Knight asked?

EDIT: I just saw your most recent post in Doormat's thread. Some overlapping is happening. You said that the colonists weren't resorting to violence until the British started it. After that it just escalated. You also said that you don't support a violent revolt now because we have the ballot box and no king. If, somehow, the gov't would revoke our right to vote, what sort of action would you support then?

Who would have thought a 4 year old thread would get so lively? :think:

:banana:

 

[rocketman]

:chuckle: That's fine. And I'm asking you questions to hopefully spark more conversation. Yes, the founders of our nation thought the British gov't was getting too oppressive. And you have said you support the American revolution so you must agree with them. Can you say specifically why you think the British gov't was so tyrannical that a war was justified? Where is that tipping point, like Knight asked?

The tipping point comes when the Government brings violence against the people as the King did in Boston firing into the crowd killing 5 people (The Boston Massacre) and amassing an army to enforce law through violent means. If the government brings violent action against those that speak against it, where will it end? with the dissenters in chains? This country no matter how how bad it gets will stand as long as the freedom of the people exists to change it through free speech, free press, free thought, without resorting to violence but, if the government moves to be violent against it's own people that is when the line is crossed IMO. What are the people to do when they are met with violence & oppression from the very government which is charged to protect them?

 

[Stripe]

What are the people to do when they are met with violence & oppression from the very government which is charged to protect them?

They will express their disapproval. However, they would not be justified in attempting to overthrow the government.

 

[Nick M]

Against the murderer, not the government.

The government is the murderer with their forced abortions for population control. Liberal heaven.

He is justified in doing what it takes to protect his child, but he is not justified in attempting to overthrow the government.

There is no difference. He is not submitting to their authority.

 

[Stripe]

The government is the murderer with their forced abortions for population control. Liberal heaven.

Evil on their part does not justify rebellion.

There is no difference. He is not submitting to their authority.

They have no authority to carry out their agenda. It is not rebellion to resist evil. It is the right thing to do. Rebellion is never right.

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!

 

[Nick M]

Evil on their part does not justify rebellion.

It does. German military enlisted and officers were guilty of murder when they obeyed orders. They should have rebelled.

They have no authority to carry out their agenda.

People are authorized by God to defend themselves. Calling it rebellion changes nothing, except trying to create a scenario that would look like a teenager "rebelling" against parents, when it is nothing of the sort.

 

[Stripe]

It does. German military enlisted and officers were guilty of murder when they obeyed orders. They should have rebelled.

Resisting evil is not rebellion. It is right. Rebellion denotes a wrong act.

People are authorized by God to defend themselves. Calling it rebellion changes nothing, except trying to create a scenario that would look like a teenager "rebelling" against parents, when it is nothing of the sort.

Which is why I use the word rebellion to only refer to unjustified acts.

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!