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

[rocketman]

...against a king in another land.

I would not use the word "rebellion" to describe it.

It is really quite irrelevant where the King sat Stripe, what is relevant is that the thirteen colonies were established by Britain starting in 1607 and were subjects of the King, flying the Kings flag, an established government by all definitions. The rebellion started in earnest after the "Boston Massacre" and open rebellion started thereafter starting about 1773-1774 and the declaration of independence from the King was issued to the King in 1776. It wasn't as if these people were in the colonies deciding what government to have they already had one, the king. When a government intends to oppress it's own people what recourse do the people have but rebellion, in fact I would say it is their right & duty to rebel, a just action under the circumstances.

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classro...ivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/rebelln/

 

[musterion]

...against a king in another land.

I would not use the word "rebellion" to describe it.

You wouldn't?

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

- Thomas "What did he know anyway" Jefferson

More on the same theme here, if you're interested.

Not asking you to agree with his sentiment on the God part, but he called it what it rightly was: rebellion.

​

 

[Stripe]

It is really quite irrelevant where the King sat.

I think it is.

The declaration of independence from the King was issued to the King in 1776.

By a bunch of people who owned their own land in a place where there was no established authority, just a king in another place with an idea.

It wasn't as if these people were in the colonies deciding what government to have.

Uh. Yes they were.

When a government intends to oppress it's own people what recourse do the people have?

None, save appeal and protest within the confines of the law or departure from that place.

In fact I would say it is their right & duty to rebel, a just action under the circumstances.

Then you have joined with the lawless in their way of thinking. The simplest resolution is to say that the Declaration of Independence was not a rebellion, but a justified act.

Rebellion against proper authority is never justified.

 

[Angel4Truth]

If he shows intention to take more (i.e. your life) then you could act accordingly, but until he does?

We should wait till he kills us or a loved one. Then we will know its proper to defend ourselves.

 

[Angel4Truth]

...against a king in another land.

I would not use the word "rebellion" to describe it.

What do you mean by rebellion then?

 

[Stripe]

What do you mean by rebellion then?

Rebellion is deliberate action in opposition to the law. Rebellion is never justified. Anything you want to call justified, you must show as being lawful. Anything you want to call rebellion, you must oppose.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Rebellion is deliberate action in opposition to the law. Rebellion is never justified.

So if the government makes a law violating the practice of Christianty, and comes to take away your wife and children, you would not rebel?

 

[Buzzword]

Violent revolution is justified against violent oppression.

The problem with advocating violent revolution is that not everyone treats the same government actions as "oppressive".

Police sometimes have to violently enforce laws because the laws are being broken violently, or a person who has committed a nonviolent crime is violently resisting arrest.

This is also the problem with actually attempting said revolution.

The American Revolution began with, among other things, a clear and concise list of actions which the British government had taken which the leaders of the revolution found oppressive, and the effects of those actions upon the colonies.

Whether those actions were oppressive by our current standards, or if they were even oppressive by the standards of the day, the people wishing to separate from their government stated their grievances clearly and moved as a unit.

Of course, their intention was to SEPARATE, not overthrow.

A revolution to overthrow is a very different animal, especially in a country as varied in culture and point of view as the United States.

 

[musterion]

I smell Loyalists.

 

[Stripe]

So if the government makes a law violating the practice of Christianty, and comes to take away your wife and children, you would not rebel?

Rebel? Against what?

I would do what I could to protect my family according to the law, which in the case you described would involve me fighting against the people trying to take my family away.

However, this scenario has nothing at all to do with the meta-conversation, which is about people overthrowing a government.

I smell Loyalists.

Do you have some kind of distaste for loyalty?

 

[Stripe]

Violent revolution is justified against violent oppression.

The problem with advocating violent revolution is that not everyone treats the same government actions as "oppressive".

Police sometimes have to violently enforce laws because the laws are being broken violently, or a person who has committed a nonviolent crime is violently resisting arrest.

This is also the problem with actually attempting said revolution.

The American Revolution began with, among other things, a clear and concise list of actions which the British government had taken which the leaders of the revolution found oppressive, and the effects of those actions upon the colonies.

Whether those actions were oppressive by our current standards, or if they were even oppressive by the standards of the day, the people wishing to separate from their government stated so clearly.

Of course, their intention was to SEPARATE, not overthrow.

A revolution to overthrow is a very different animal, especially in a country as varied in culture and point of view as the United States.

I think I agree with the gist of that. Would you agree that the only reason it could be a separation was because the kingdom was of another land?

For example, if the kingdom had decided himself to move permanently to the then-colony, a "separation" would not have been possible.

 

[rocketman]

I think it is.

I can see that..

By a bunch of people who owned their own land in a place where there was no established authority, just a king in another place with an idea.

That is false Stripe, the colonies were established by the British and were subject to the kings rule & authority.

Uh. Yes they were.

Not until almost 100 years after British rule was established. A rebellion against established authority is a rebellion is it not?

None, save appeal and protest within the confines of the law or departure from that place.

Then by your definition the colonists were lawless, being they were under the rule of the crown for near 100 years prior.

Then you have joined with the lawless in their way of thinking. The simplest resolution is to say that the Declaration of Independence was not a rebellion, but a justified act.

I guess most Americans have that lawless streak towards freedom from tyrannical governments. I am not saying all rebellion is justified but, I would contend that under certain circumstances it is right and necessary.

Rebellion against proper authority is never justified.

What constitutes "proper authority"? God institutes governments as well as bringing governments and authorities down does He not?

 

[musterion]

Do you have some kind of distaste for loyalty?

Depends.

 

[Stripe]

Wait. I think my initial response to the OP is incorrect. Is "revolution" ever justified? Revolution just means a change, so revolution is not a morally definable action.

I live in a land where open rebellion is considered a person's "democratic right" and things are spiralling out of control rather quickly. My incorrect response to the OP was based upon this backdrop and I probably did not think carefully enough about what the term "revolution" might mean to a US citizen.

Can we reword the OP to say "rebellion" or "overthrow of the government"?

 

[Stripe]

Not until almost 100 years after British rule was established.

The authority was never established. The king did not move in. Did he even visit?

 

[musterion]

There's really no practical difference. To revolt necessitates rebellion. A rebellion is by definition a revolt.

 

[musterion]

The authority was never established. The king did not move in. Did he even visit?

It was a growing world empire, Stripe. A literal empire. Brittania ruling the waves, tea from India, felons to Australia and all that.

 

[Stripe]

By your definition the colonists were lawless, being they were under the rule of the crown for near 100 years prior.

Not if I do not believe that the kingdom had not been established in the then-colony.

I would contend that under certain circumstances it is right and necessary.

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.

What constitutes "proper authority"?

I think that is one of those things that is easily recognizable, but impossible to define. Like personhood.

Let me ask you this: If the King of Tonga sent a few people to the US and then declared your nation a colony of Tonga, what would happen?

God institutes governments as well as bringing governments and authorities down does He not?

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.

 

[rocketman]

The authority was never established. The king did not move in. Did he even visit?

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? 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.

 

[Stripe]

There's really no practical difference. To revolt necessitates rebellion. A rebellion is by definition a revolt.

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, 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.

It was a growing world empire, Stripe. A literal empire. Brittania ruling the waves, tea from India, felons to Australia and all that.

Yeah, no kidding. I am still a part of it. However, that kingdom has naturally shrunk because of the limits of power. A kingdom cannot survive without a king. When he is absent, the kingdom falls. A king who declares ownership of a place, but does not take possession of it, has not established his kingdom there.

I do not believe the action of the then-colonies was unjustified. I believe their revolution was not a rebellion, but an assertion of their right to land and governance. Am I really at odds with you on this?