Amazon.com Widgets
  • Our right, our duty

    Philosopher John Locke said in Two Treatises of Government that citizens have a moral duty to rebel against and even overthrow a government or any sovereign that breaks its part of the social contract (e.G. Acts tyrannically), and I have to agree with him on that. If we had not rebelled against the British, the United States would not be a free country. And this not just refers to the Revolutionary War, but any situation in which a person or group is wrongfully deprived of their liberty.

  • Must not be a lot of liberals answering this question. 67% say yes.

    No way a person who loves big government is going to think it's their right, much less obligation to revolt against a government so big that it oversteps it's bounds. Either that, or they're just naive enough to think that it will never happen, which history has proven is a rather idiotic very dangerous way to think.

    Of course it's our obligation. Freedom isn't free. If you don't take freedom by force, you don't get to have it.

    A Christian is obligated to do as God calls them, and for some that will be revolt while for others it will be to obey the government, but still put God first.

    However, to any who are not called by God specifically not to rebel, it's their obligation to rebel and overthrow the tyrannical government for the sake of their families and their communities so that we can worship in freedom.

    Soon the left will inevitably win and take our freedoms, but I do not believe enough will rebel to stop them because we have grown complacent, and those that support the left have grown numb in their thinking. They won't rebel till it's too late, and then their cowardice will keep them silent, and their propensity to believe what they're told will have them blaming everyone except themselves for their oppression.

  • We are morally obligated to revolt.

    When our naturally occurring rights are threatened by governing authorities, it is the moral obligation of the people to take arms against the government in order to abolish the tyrannical rulers and establish a less oppressive body. Undertones of this pulse throughout our Bill of Rights and Constitution, and it is directly stated in the Declaration of Independence. We are entitled to the freedom of speech, meeting, press and arms for a reason, and that reason is to fight oppressive leaders. Think of it as a company where the people are the employer and the governing office-holders are the employees. When the government isn't doing its job correctly, we hold the right to "fire" it, removing it from its position and "hiring" a new one that does its job the right way.

  • Yes it is in our Right

    I think if our government gets too powerful and tramples over our liberties than I say we are morally obligated for the generations that come after us. Our own founding documents say that it is the duty of the people to remove an unjust form of government. There are many people who would rather die than live as a slave.

  • We have to utilise each and every right given to us

    It is the inherent property of every human to possess a sense of anger. Which paves way for revolt. It is important to revolt , to voice your opinion. How you feel about the society around you etc. The temptation of revolting is mutual amongst each and every human being. We must learn to utilise it in a good way and all of us have revolted in some point of our life. We cannot ignore it.

  • Yes, protection of human rights

    We have to protect ourselves from tyranny, If a million people die saving future citizens from a government that kills its own citizens or plunders their houses and properties, then we could save a million lives down the road. If we let the tyranny go on with no revolt then we ourselves are responsible for the deaths of, or the diminishing of human rights of future generations, that is way more costly than a million people dieing. If a government does not protect human rights then we must revolt to change the course of tyranny and protect not only ourselves but others that happen to be born into that type of society.

  • Yes, protection of human rights

    We have to protect ourselves from tyranny, If a million people die saving future citizens from a government that kills its own citizens or plunders their houses and properties, then we could save a million lives down the road. If we let the tyranny go on with no revolt then we ourselves are responsible for the deaths of, or the diminishing of human rights of future generations, that is way more costly than a million people dieing. If a government does not protect human rights then we must revolt to change the course of tyranny and protect not only ourselves but others that happen to be born into that type of society.

  • To survive is our right, our duty

    In a situation where a person or group is wrongfully deprived of their liberty they will prefer to submit more than to revolt if to revolt means to die. To revolt in uneven balance of power will mean to die and will result in frivolous massacres with no benefits for the person or group that has been wrongfully deprived of their liberty.

  • We are not morally obliged to revolt

    We are morally obliged by learning.Wrongfully deprived of their liberty they will prefer to submit more than to revolt if to revolt means to die. To revolt in uneven balance of power will mean to die and will result in frivolous massacres with no benefits for the person or group that has been wrongfully deprived of their liberty.

  • No We Are Not

    Firstly, are right is not an obligation; one holds the liberty to speak out against injustice, but that does not mean that they are obliged to "speak out" against injustice. This is only reserved for a situation where the government acts in an unjustified way. If we were obliged to "revolt" against tyranny, then we are also obliged to revolt against any other government, because we are obliged to revolt, no matter what the conditions maybe.

    Secondly, we now attack Locke's political philosophy on the state of nature; it is quite ironic that an empiricist thinker like Locke would automatically assume the existence of the pessimistic Hobbesian view. Humans live in brutish and nasty conditions in the Hobbesian view because of three reasons for conflict; this war a empirical observation that Hobbes used. But Locke has stated humans are "tolerant and empathetic" Hobbes used examples; Locke never did so. If humans are tolerant and empathetic, then the state of nature should have prevailed. But it didn't; it led to the creation of the social contract and the state.

    Lastly, we must look at the "ideal" Lockean society. An ideal Lockean society is the state of nature with some adjustments; i.E protective agencies. Firstly, we take the neo-Nozickian view against this form of organization; the protective agencies would often fight with each other in order to come to a consensus on crime; this post-revolutionary society would then become a state in the sense that each protective agencies will enforce their set of laws, however oppressive, upon one area and will force a monopoly of power to be created.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
LogicalLunatic says2014-07-05T00:57:06.700
Please just stop already. Nobody's gonna revolt any time soon.
thenewkidd says2014-07-05T12:10:59.587
"Morally Obliged"?
I can neither definitively say yes or no to this as I see both sides of the argument as I don't know if there was moral objective here over the necessity of what needed to happen if they wanted to became an independent nation...
More research would have to be taken into account before I could make an educated decision on the matter.
thenewkidd says2014-07-05T12:11:56.247
O wait... Is this about today or the 1700s?