+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: When is armed struggle against the state justified?

  1. #1
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default When is armed struggle against the state justified?

    I'm curious what you all think are the necessary criteria to justify individuals or groups of individuals in a society taking up arms against the state. Many current nations states (including the one I live in) were born of armed struggle against the state. What does a government have to do or fail to do that would justify an individual using violence against representatives of the state with the goal of replacing the government or eliminating the state?

    (also posted on SDMB)

  2. #2
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    24,320

    Default

    If you live in a democracy under the rule of law, only when the democratic process has entirely broken down and you truly have no other recourse. Such conditions have IMHO not existed in the U.S. since 1776 (sorry, neo-Confederates, Freemen, gun nuts, Tea Partiers etc.).

  3. #3
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    I disagree with you on one point, Elendil's Heir, the american states were under a perfectly democratic law, which had not broken down and by your rationale, there was no reason for the states to seceed and form their own nation. But they did take up arms and fight.

    I think part of it is how much the people in an area identify with the government. Most insurrections and rebellions have come about because there are two distinct groups of people split along some line which has become a major sticking point that neither group is willing to compromise on. It also does not help if the country has been conquered at some time in the past and has refused to accept the victors.

    Armed insurrection is a viable means of protest when there is no other means of protest. Or that the result of the protest is to have arms turned against you to keep the status quo.

    I'll be honest and say I am surprised that there has not been another armed struggle in Zimbabwe given its troubles.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  4. #4
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    US managed to win and then basically draw in 1812 to remain free. So basically we got to write our history. But as much as it pains me, I do not believe the Colonies were oppressed nearly as much as the average Middle Eastern nation are today. (Well at least for the select group of free men in the colonies.)

    As wrong as the South was for the Civil war they're claims against the North due seem on par with the Colonies complaints of rulership from afar imposing their will in disregard of the actual citizens of the colonies and the taxation without representation. Now the Confederacy was starting from a point that was morally corrupt but the Colonies were at least half slave states and Boston was a major part of the slave trade. All the northern states had slaves in addition and women of course had very little representation or rights except in a few states where widows had the vote and right to property at least.

    The Confederacy, no matter how it gets dressed up, basically took up arms to preserve a way of life based on slavery. The rest is window dressing. The Colonies rebelled for self rule. As later did India. Hopefully those in the Middle East and North Africa are currently rebelling for democratic reforms but I fear some of them will just exchange one despot for another group of despot.

  5. #5
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Could you say by today's standards that the American Revolution was a justified call to arms by the local population against the British?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  6. #6
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Depends, I think it was justified in particular as communication lines were so weak. England had no great ability to govern the wealthy colonies of America is all it boils down to. Another time. By today standards, there was probably less reason to rebel (at least for those that actually did rebel) then we are seeing in the Middle East and North Africa.

  7. #7
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    I disagree with you on one point, Elendil's Heir, the american states were under a perfectly democratic law, which had not broken down and by your rationale, there was no reason for the states to seceed and form their own nation. But they did take up arms and fight.
    Well, by their own rationale, the American revolutionaries were in the wrong to secede. They lacked direct representation in Parliament, but so did something like 95% of British citizens. The taxes had been passed by Parliament, which provided virtual representation to all Englishmen. The taxes they were faced with had been passed the same as any other taxes directed against any other British subjects (aside from that tiny minority who could vote). Obviously I'm glad my country exists, but a lot of philosophical idiocy regarding taxes and how they should be handled got started there.

  8. #8
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    24,320

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    I disagree with you on one point, Elendil's Heir, the american states were under a perfectly democratic law, which had not broken down and by your rationale, there was no reason for the states to seceed and form their own nation. But they did take up arms and fight....
    They did, but that is precisely my point. The Confederacy was formed, and the Southern states seceded, because Abraham Lincoln was lawfully elected President of the United States, and he had pledged to keep slavery from expanding into Federal territories or new states. This was unacceptable to the big slaveholders who formed the Southern governing elite (yes, I know that most Southerners didn't own slaves). Read the articles of secession in South Carolina and the other states from 1860-61; read the "Cornerstone Speech" of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens. Slavery was far and away the most important issue for Southern decision-makers.

    Just because they had lost an election and foresaw that national policy on that issue was going to turn against them, the South was, IMHO, unjustified in attempting to secede and in thus taking up arms against the U.S. As Lincoln pointed out, democracy could never survive if the nation could be broken up just because a minority didn't like the outcome of an election.

  9. #9
    PixieBob
    Guest

    Default

    When is armed struggle against the state justified? IMHO, Right about now.

  10. #10
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    So where does the line between terrorist and freedom fighter stand. Should it be when the government will outright refuse to listen to your wishes, even through democratic process, or can it be justified as a means to bring about legitimate change?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  11. #11
    PixieBob
    Guest

    Default

    The line is determined by who wins and thus gets to frame the situation. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

  12. #12
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by PixieBob View post
    The line is determined by who wins and thus gets to frame the situation. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
    There is no way around this, it is basically reality. If you win and hold out you were a freedom fighter. If you lose you were at best misguided rebels like the Confederacy of the Southern States of the USA and at worst terrorist. As much as I am pro-Israel in general, the PLO can be seen as either a terrorist organization or Freedom Fighters that at least partially succeeded.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts