The Right to Revolution

[Telconi]

Death is not always worse than incarceration.

But this is like saying you consent to sex if you don't resist against a gun to your head

You do. We just don't consider said consent valid in our legak system because it's coerced through force, or the threat of force.

[The Parkus Empire]

But this is like saying you consent to sex if you don't resist against a gun to your head

You do. We just don't consider said consent valid in our legak system because it's coerced through force, or the threat of force.

Right, coercion is distinct from consent. Unless robbery is a consensual transaction

[Telconi]

You do. We just don't consider said consent valid in our legak system because it's coerced through force, or the threat of force.

Right, coercion is distinct from consent. Unless robbery is a consensual transaction

Coercion is legally distinct from consent. The relationship between a rapist or robber and their victim falls under an umbrella of higher authority. Thus said authority applies. The relationship between government and and individual subject to it isn't overseen by any higher power. This it exists on a purely voluntry basis.

[The Liberated Territories]

If "right" can be defined solely in terms of force, then there is always a right to revolution.

[The Parkus Empire]

Right, coercion is distinct from consent. Unless robbery is a consensual transaction

Coercion is legally distinct from consent. The relationship between a rapist or robber and their victim falls under an umbrella of higher authority. Thus said authority applies. The relationship between government and and individual subject to it isn't overseen by any higher power. This it exists on a purely voluntry basis.

Not unless you're bastardizing the term "voluntary" pretty heavily

[Gostmark]

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.

Unlawful according to what law? God's law? Despite God's supposedly omnipotent nature, his law is not universal.

[Telconi]

Coercion is legally distinct from consent. The relationship between a rapist or robber and their victim falls under an umbrella of higher authority. Thus said authority applies. The relationship between government and and individual subject to it isn't overseen by any higher power. This it exists on a purely voluntry basis.

Not unless you're bastardizing the term "voluntary" pretty heavily

On the contrary, implying that a threat inherently determines outcome is a bastardization of the concept of voluntary.

Our very own founders understood what I say, "whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed" et al.

[The Parkus Empire]

Not unless you're bastardizing the term "voluntary" pretty heavily

On the contrary, implying that a threat inherently determines outcome is a bastardization of the concept of voluntary.

Our very own founders understood what I say, "whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed" et al.

Whether it determines the outcome is inconsequential. Coercion isn't voluntary, unless slavery is.

Jefferson was of course incorrect. Neither did he mean it as you do, he meant government ruling by coercion is unjust.

[Aclion]

Is there a "right to revolution"

Yes.

and if so, what circumstances permit it?

If you win.

[Farlandiay]

I fall more in line with Locke's social contract theory, being that if a government should violate it than the people have a right to rebel, protest, and revolt. There are mutual expectations between the government and the governed, and each has the right to uphold their expectation of the social contract. The government has the right to punish those who subvert the agreed upon rights of the populace, and the populace has the right to overthrow a government which violates it's innate rights.

[The Snazzylands]

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.

All governing authorities? Even the ones that actively discourage Christianity or belief in God in general?

[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.

All governing authorities? Even the ones that actively discourage Christianity or belief in God in general?

The Romans did that, and Paul was speaking of the Romans, so including those authorities, yes.

[Greater Miami Shores]

All governing authorities? Even the ones that actively discourage Christianity or belief in God in general?

The Romans did that, and Paul was speaking of the Romans, so including those authorities, yes.

Yeah, Viva the Democratic Revolutions, lol.

[The Snazzylands]

All governing authorities? Even the ones that actively discourage Christianity or belief in God in general?

The Romans did that, and Paul was speaking of the Romans, so including those authorities, yes.

What about governing authorities that arose from revolts against other governing authorities, like the US?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Romans did that, and Paul was speaking of the Romans, so including those authorities, yes.

What about governing authorities that arose from revolts against other governing authorities, like the US?

Can't say for certain on that, I'm not a theologian.

[Risottia]

There cannot be a right to revolution, as revolution itself is an act that defies the current definition of rights to substitute it with a new one. It works at the metalevel of rights.

[Risottia]

I fall more in line with Locke's social contract theory, being that if a government should violate it than the people have a right to rebel, protest, and revolt. There are mutual expectations between the government and the governed, and each has the right to uphold their expectation of the social contract. The government has the right to punish those who subvert the agreed upon rights of the populace, and the populace has the right to overthrow a government which violates it's innate rights.

Governments have no rights. They have duties and prerogatives.
Also the populace has no rights. Individuals, and only individuals, can have rights.

[Risottia]

Wait.
What?

God told the Jewish people not to establish a state, because it would mean the state would oppress them, but they did anyway, so God gave the monarchy the power to rule them and refused to take the yolk off when the Israelites tired of it.

How the fuck can one get tired of the yolk? Do you eat only the egg's white?
Also, taking the yolk off isn't such hard work, what did the Israelites want? Did they expect God to cut their meat and fish sticks for them, too?
Did they mix it up, asked God to cut off their meat sticks? Could this be the real story behind circumcision?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Revolution, like all fighting is a last resort
When you cannot get the government to grant your freedom, when you can get nothing from them, not even a compromise. When your desire to be free is directly stopped by the government, then it is ok. Even then, make it as bloodless as possible