The Right to Revolution

[The Parkus Empire]

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.

Is there a "right to revolution", and if so, what circumstances permit it?

I personally do not believe there is a "right to revolution" except in two cases. One, where a government or sovereign violates the law which his authority is subject to. And two, when a people is subject to a foreign domination. Both conditions can obviously be filled at once, but in the second case it requires that the subjugated people and the ruling people be quite distinct, and this be recognized on both sides. Neither condition requires majority support (the American Revolution, for example, did not have majority support).

If revolution considered to be permissible "just because", then that means no government would have the right to prevent a revolution. This makes no sense, it would mean any hostile faction on a whim could declare their area independent, or even overthrow the state itself. Stability would be utterly impossible in such a situation. A right to revolution means precisely that there is no right to govern, that no government is valid if the majority of a locality disagrees with it. Imagine a government trying to borrow money if it upheld such a right, imagine trying to print money.

[Western-Ukraine]

If a non-democratic regime governs the people in a way that doesn't ultimately promote the interests of the nation and the people, the regime is unlawful. In this scenario the people have a right to revolution. Foreign rule also justifies rebellion against that regime, if the people are very distinct. Displaced people do not have a right to revolution in their new homeland, however.

[The Parkus Empire]

If a non-democratic regime governs the people in a way that doesn't ultimately promote the interests of the nation and the people, the regime is unlawful.

Based on what?

[Telconi]

[quote="Abraham Lincoln]Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. [/quote]

Is there a "right to revolution", and if so, what circumstances permit it?

I personally do not believe there is a "right to revolution" except in two cases. One, where a government or sovereign violates the law which his authority is subject to. And two, when a people is subject to a foreign domination. Both conditions can obviously be filled at once, but in the second case it requires that the subjugated people and the ruling people be quite distinct, and this be recognized on both sides. Neither condition requires majority support (the American Revolution, for example, did not have majority support).

If revolution considered to be permissible "just because", then that means no government would have the right to prevent a revolution. This makes no sense, it would mean any hostile faction on a whim could declare their area independent, or even overthrow the state itself. Stability would be utterly impossible in such a situation. A right to revolution means precisely that there is no right to govern, that no government is valid if the majority of a locality disagrees with it. Imagine a government trying to borrow money if it upheld such a right, imagine trying to print money.[/quote]

A right to revolution exists. For any reason whatsoever.

[Western-Ukraine]

If a non-democratic regime governs the people in a way that doesn't ultimately promote the interests of the nation and the people, the regime is unlawful.

Based on what?

Based on whether the regime promotes economic growth, national security, well-being, freedom and justice to name some. A lawful regime has to promote most, if not all, of the aforementioned concepts. If a non-democratic regime is unable to qualify, it is justified to overthrow it.

[The Parkus Empire]

A right to revolution exists. For any reason whatsoever.

Then government has no authority to order anyone to do anything.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Probably not, since rights are legal constructs and revolutions are by necessity illegal affairs. You could have a right to rebel, perhaps.

[The Parkus Empire]

A lawful regime has to promote most, if not all, of the aforementioned concepts.

Where does the law say that?

[Telconi]

A right to revolution exists. For any reason whatsoever.

Then government has no authority to order anyone to do anything.

Correct.

[The Parkus Empire]

Then government has no authority to order anyone to do anything.

Correct.

I take it you oppose the death penalty?

[Western-Ukraine]

A lawful regime has to promote most, if not all, of the aforementioned concepts.

Where does the law say that?

In hypothetical law.

[The Parkus Empire]

Where does the law say that?

In hypothetical law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWjLjPqwtk8

[DPR of Arstotzka]

Where does the law say that?

In hypothetical law.

Hypothetical is the opposite of actual. Countries can not be defined as breaking a law.

edit: except, obviously, violations of the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions.

[Telconi]

Correct.

I take it you oppose the death penalty?

I do.

Although I don't see how that's particularly relevant.

[The Parkus Empire]

I take it you oppose the death penalty?

I do.

Although I don't see how that's particularly relevant.

Obviously if the government has no right to do anything, it has no right to put anyone in jail, let alone kill them.

[Nationalsozialistisches Reich Germania]

Speaking for Germany auch a right is actually part of our constitution. §20 Grundgesetz.
It is every citizens right to use force against a person or institution that tries to change or overthrow any of §1-20 in the german constitution.

One could say they learned a thing or two from history...specifically 1933-1945.

[Telconi]

I do.

Although I don't see how that's particularly relevant.

Obviously if the government has no right to do anything, it has no right to put anyone in jail, let alone kill them.

People implicitly consent to jail. The government has no mind control powers.

[The Parkus Empire]

People implicitly consent to jail.

Lol it's funny you can tell people what they consent to better than they can.

[DPR of Arstotzka]

Obviously if the government has no right to do anything, it has no right to put anyone in jail, let alone kill them.

People implicitly consent to jail. The government has no mind control powers.

Not true. Authoritarian/totalitarian governments have the possibility of 'reeducation'. If you can force them to accept your beliefs, then why punish them? Plus, if you talk to people the right way, you can make them believe what you have to say (see Nazi Germany).

[Telconi]

People implicitly consent to jail.

Lol it's funny you can tell people what they consent to better than they can.

I'm glad you are amused.

[Telconi]

People implicitly consent to jail. The government has no mind control powers.

Not true. Authoritarian/totalitarian governments have the possibility of 'reeducation'. If you can force them to accept your beliefs, then why punish them? Plus, if you talk to people the right way, you can make them believe what you have to say (see Nazi Germany).

It is perhaps an uninformed choice, but one none the less.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, there is not. The governing authorities are instituted by God, and the people should not abolish them, because we asked for them to be instituted in the first place against God's will.

[The Parkus Empire]

Lol it's funny you can tell people what they consent to better than they can.

I'm glad you are amused.

I am because this amounts to the same thing as a government having the right to order, since the government is considered to be a higher authority on what you consent to than you are.

[DPR of Arstotzka]

No, there is not. The governing authorities are instituted by God, and the people should not abolish them, because we asked for them to be instituted in the first place against God's will.

Wait.
What?

[Telconi]

I'm glad you are amused.

I am because this amounts to the same thing as a government having the right to order, since the government is considered to be a higher authority on what you consent to than you are.

Perhaps they are by you.