Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

When is the Government Worth Overthrowing?

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 6:44:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When the government becomes a separate ominous force that works against the citizens of society instead of supporting them then it is time for the government to get their act together.

When is the government worth overthrowing? That's something I can't answer, but when the time comes I think the people will know.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 9:18:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.
Tsar of DDO
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:34:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:19:18 PM, YYW wrote:
...or at least that's what some guys in a colony somewhere thought.

The problem with that document though is that it says "all men are created equal," so obviously women were included, but even slaves were not part of the framer's collective vision for the most part (the key word is collective, obviously). I mean, I think slavery is pretty "destructive of these ends," unless of course the ends are so narrow that they can't be.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:34:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:34:16 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:19:18 PM, YYW wrote:
...or at least that's what some guys in a colony somewhere thought.

The problem with that document though is that it says "all men are created equal," so obviously women were included, but even slaves were not part of the framer's collective vision for the most part (the key word is collective, obviously). I mean, I think slavery is pretty "destructive of these ends," unless of course the ends are so narrow that they can't be.

*weren't

I need to stop nit-picking at 2 a.m.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:00:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:34:16 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:19:18 PM, YYW wrote:
...or at least that's what some guys in a colony somewhere thought.

The problem with that document though is that it says "all men are created equal," so obviously women were included, but even slaves were not part of the framer's collective vision for the most part (the key word is collective, obviously). I mean, I think slavery is pretty "destructive of these ends," unless of course the ends are so narrow that they can't be.

I've always thought the framers were just Hypocrites. I think it would be one of those things. If you ask a thief if stealing is wrong, he'll say yes. That doesn't stop him from stealing.

The term men, would kind of be like the term mankind. It's just a problem with the English language and not actually directed towards men alone.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:01:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

I'd have to think. Unless the voting system is found to be rigged an overthrow in a Democratic society shouldn't be considered.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:21:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

An important distinction should be made here: do you mean overthrown by external or internal forces? There are quite a few strains of thought on both.
Kumquatodor
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 5:16:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:21:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

An important distinction should be made here: do you mean overthrown by external or internal forces? There are quite a few strains of thought on both.

I mean the internal V for Vendetta/Hunger Games/American Revolution level of overthrowing governments.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 5:51:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 5:16:47 AM, Kumquatodor wrote:
I mean the internal V for Vendetta/Hunger Games/American Revolution level of overthrowing governments.

So basically a "grassroots" rebellion type situation, not, say, a military or internal government coup.

The basic idea behind those types of rebellions are usually based on the idea that the government has breached some sort of fundamental portion of a state's social contract - taking away civil liberties, putting undue restrictions on the population, contravening established systems of rule-of-law and societal "justice," so on and so forth.

The question then is what constitutes a breach of the social contract serious enough to warrent mass insurrection, and whether or not mobilizing a rebellion is worth the possible cost in lives and capital. After all, overthrowing a government is not "worth" it if you'll all get yourselves killed or ruin everything you had over breaches that can't be rectified by electing a new government or appealing to another state actor (like the military or the courts). So any overthrowing of a government would require something pretty goddamn serious, usually on a mass scale, to warrant such actions. Examples off the top of my head would be genocide, mass detainment, even nationalization of all capital or the widespread abuse of an underclass.

Or we could just overthrow Hussein 'Bama for takin' all er guns or something.
Kumquatodor
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 6:02:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 5:51:10 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/31/2014 5:16:47 AM, Kumquatodor wrote:
I mean the internal V for Vendetta/Hunger Games/American Revolution level of overthrowing governments.

So basically a "grassroots" rebellion type situation, not, say, a military or internal government coup.

The basic idea behind those types of rebellions are usually based on the idea that the government has breached some sort of fundamental portion of a state's social contract - taking away civil liberties, putting undue restrictions on the population, contravening established systems of rule-of-law and societal "justice," so on and so forth.

The question then is what constitutes a breach of the social contract serious enough to warrent mass insurrection, and whether or not mobilizing a rebellion is worth the possible cost in lives and capital. After all, overthrowing a government is not "worth" it if you'll all get yourselves killed or ruin everything you had over breaches that can't be rectified by electing a new government or appealing to another state actor (like the military or the courts). So any overthrowing of a government would require something pretty goddamn serious, usually on a mass scale, to warrant such actions. Examples off the top of my head would be genocide, mass detainment, even nationalization of all capital or the widespread abuse of an underclass.

Or we could just overthrow Hussein 'Bama for takin' all er guns or something.

I really hate the TSA, NSA, gun control thing, Obamacare, etc., but the risk doesn't seem to be worth it.

But if it isn't worth the risk, what IS worth risking. I guess that is subjective. I struggle with this question.

Surely it has to be less than total tyranny. If total tyranny is our tipping point, then it'll be too late when we get there.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 6:10:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
They are worth overthrown when they proved unable to govern. A Somalian government might be worth overthrown, a post-war KMT government is worth overthrown, a British India government is worth overthrown.

There are no morale high ground for forming or overthrowing government. We just need security, organization, living space, that's why we've formed a government. When its aim became conflict with some of our interest then we fought against it. When it failed to do it job, we dissolved it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 6:19:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 6:02:01 AM, Kumquatodor wrote:
I really hate the TSA, NSA, gun control thing, Obamacare, etc., but the risk doesn't seem to be worth it.

Plus you can appeal to other things, such as electing someone into office who will take action on those things, or go to the court and claim its unconstitutional.

But if it isn't worth the risk, what IS worth risking. I guess that is subjective. I struggle with this question.

Surely it has to be less than total tyranny. If total tyranny is our tipping point, then it'll be too late when we get there.

Using the US as an example, your government is set up in such a way that it would take a lot to create a situation (for rational people, anyways) whereby anything so serious comes along that you have to overthrow your government as the first or best option.

Its very tricky to figure out where the line is between tyranny and, uh, not-tyranny is without the benefit of hindsight too. So deciding whether or not a government is on the slippery slope of tyranny is, as you said, subjective, so it will depend on what your moral values are, and what you're willing to fight for or give up.

For example, protesters in the various Soviet bloc countries (Czechoslovakia, Hungary, so on) were willing to fight for their rights to free speech and movement, and often times many of them were willing to give up what little freedom they did have (such as not being imprisoned) or even their lives. But that's because they had no other recourse, really. Or, to use a more current example, Nelson Mandela was willing to give up the little freedom he had as a black in apartheid South Africa in order to stop that oppressive system, and thus ended up in jail for the cause.

If you're really interested in learning about these kinds of struggles, I'd suggest picking up a book about life in the Soviet blocs or even Mandela's book. Probably give you a sense of what is worth fighting for in a truly oppressive society.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 7:59:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

When the government morphs from a protector of society to a provider of Bread and Circuses.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 5:47:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

That is determined by the collective of the people. There is no objective line of "when they cross this, they are out." It is just when have they done enough to where enough of the people are willing to die to remove them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 6:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:00:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:34:16 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:19:18 PM, YYW wrote:
...or at least that's what some guys in a colony somewhere thought.

The problem with that document though is that it says "all men are created equal," so obviously women were included, but even slaves were not part of the framer's collective vision for the most part (the key word is collective, obviously). I mean, I think slavery is pretty "destructive of these ends," unless of course the ends are so narrow that they can't be.

I've always thought the framers were just Hypocrites. I think it would be one of those things. If you ask a thief if stealing is wrong, he'll say yes. That doesn't stop him from stealing.

The term men, would kind of be like the term mankind. It's just a problem with the English language and not actually directed towards men alone.

Actually, many of the Founding Fathers had abolitionist views. By the beginning of the 19th century slavery was abolished in several Northern States. No, I am not citing sources here (because it's difficult for me to post links on this Kindle Fire) but it's true regardless.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 11:03:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

I find the NH Bill of rights explains it best.

"[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness...

[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void...

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." ~ NH Bill of Rights, written June 2, 1784
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 8:41:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

Enough is enough as soon as government forms. Its entire purpose is to maintain power and control over the people to benefit the establishment.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 12:04:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:00:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:34:16 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:19:18 PM, YYW wrote:
...or at least that's what some guys in a colony somewhere thought.

The problem with that document though is that it says "all men are created equal," so obviously women were included, but even slaves were not part of the framer's collective vision for the most part (the key word is collective, obviously). I mean, I think slavery is pretty "destructive of these ends," unless of course the ends are so narrow that they can't be.

I've always thought the framers were just Hypocrites. I think it would be one of those things. If you ask a thief if stealing is wrong, he'll say yes. That doesn't stop him from stealing.

The term men, would kind of be like the term mankind. It's just a problem with the English language and not actually directed towards men alone.

It's a bit of a difficult situation. Many, or at least a good number, of the framers had abolitionist views because slavery clearly could not be reconciled with a people who were declaring themselves free from an overseas government. But they also recognized that if they abolished slavery that it would split the country in half and lead either to civil war (which of course it did) or make the country a target for Britain to retake it. Thomas Jefferson is a good case study of this as he was deeply troubled by the contradiction in his and others' actions on this point. Calling them hypocrites may be accurate, but I think it misses the complexities of the situation.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 12:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

It's hard to say. If we look at the American Revolution, Americans did not make that decision lightly. They tried every diplomatic effort to settle things with Britain without a war, but the King refused to entertain them. It wasn't even so much that they were against having a monarch but that they were against being taxed for a war they gained little from without any true representation in the legislature. And of course there were Americans who were Loyalists even after the Revolution broke out.

The problem I see with people who talk about revolution today is that they take it so lightly, which is utterly antithetical to how the decision to begin the Revolution was came to. The Americans of 1776 were not upset that their representatives in government were making decisions they didn't like or that the representatives in government weren't the people they personally wanted. They literally had ZERO representation beyond a token representative for the whole colonies that had no power as far as I can tell. Today's "revolutionaries" make it seem like the Revolution was fought simply because the founders didn't get what they wanted.
jamccartney
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 12:37:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 6:28:30 PM, Kumquatodor wrote:
When is enough enough, and what is enough?

The government is worth overthrowing when:
1. The separation of church and state is no longer in existence
2. Fascism becomes larger than democracy
3. Politicians make laws concerning themselves, not the good of the country

These three points are what must be met for it to be okay to overthrow the government. In the United States, 3 has already took place and 1 is on the verge of occurring. So is 2.
Jjjohn
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 12:23:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Revolution is a messy business. Lots of people get killed, lots of women get raped, lots of property gets destroyed, lots of wealth is lost and the survivors of that generation are scarred. I don't have an answer your question, but I have a good idea what the price is for taking such an action.