After Hours

General discussion

Locked

There's no right of revolution in a democracy

By NickNielsen ·
Tags: Off Topic
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/27/bogus.right.rebel/index.html

As it happens, I agree with him. I've been trying to articulate this for years, but never quite succeeded.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Hence the need

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to The biggest problem with ...

for that oh so subtle propaganda that proliferates via 'mainstream media'. Which, will become more effective as education is further and further dumbed down.

Collapse -

The biggest problem

by santeewelding In reply to There's no right of revol ...

That I had with his piece was how benevolently abstract, historical, and highly reasonable he was until he got to the sole, lonely, specific mention of, "ammunition holders".

Did he reason down to these "holders" from the heights, or did he start with them and creep the back way up to the heights?

I think the creep started with them.

They're properly called, "magazines", a term he could not allow to pass his lips, true to hoplophobic form.

Collapse -

I tripped over that one myself

by NickNielsen In reply to The biggest problem

But apparently, I fell.

Collapse -

Another thing that doesn't make sense

by maxwell edison In reply to There's no right of revol ...

There's no right of revolution in a democracy

It assumes democracies come in only one flavor, which, of course, they don't. In a pure democracy, for example, a 51 percent majority could vote to enslave the 49 percent minority. An absurd example, to be sure, but appropriate to challenge an absurd assertion. Nonetheless, is he suggesting that the enslaved 49 percent have no right to revolt?

Moreover, he is probably assuming that a revolution is synonymous to an armed insurrection. It doesn't have to be.

And, of course, it ignores the fact that the USA is not a Democracy; it???s a Constitutional Republic.

It's just a silly article that, as I've said earlier, is no more than a set-up to argue for weaker Second Amendment rights and to stifle speech that he disagrees with. A real wolf in sheep's clothing.

Collapse -

Agreed.

by santeewelding In reply to Another thing that doesn' ...

There is more, but not worth the effort. And, who listens to the likes of us.

Collapse -

Moreover, who decides. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to There's no right of revol ...

..... when a democratic state (of some form) tilts, or falls, into something else?

Has any democratic state lasted more than 200 years? If a democratic state on is on the very cusp of falling into something else, must its citizens wait for the fall to revolt? Do people not have a right to revolution just before it falls? Or must they wait for it to fall?

Not only do a democratic people have an inherent right to revolution, under some conditions, they have an obligation to it. Therefore, the question is not whether or not a democratic people have a right to revolution, but under what conditions are they obligated to do just that?

Regardless of the answer, I don't think professor Carl T. Bogus, the writer of the article, is the one who gets to decide. (An appropriate name, I might add.)

Collapse -

That's where we disagree sharply

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Moreover, who decides. . ...

A democratic people has not a right to revolution, nor an obligation to it.
A democratic people has a responsibility, nay a duty, to keep its democracy in working order.
Who else will? Government?!? *LOL*
Like I said at an earlier time, in a thread far, far away : revolutions are for snoozers (insofar as democratic nations are concerned).
Post-snooze, that's a different matter entirely.

Maxwell, may I ask you to read my petition,
http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-340847
if you have not already. We have one vote to go to get the bug-sheet to 1st place.

Collapse -

The most solemn obligation of citizens to a democratic state

by DelbertPGH In reply to Moreover, who decides. . ...

is making sure it doesn't collapse into tyranny or irrelevance. This is a higher duty than drawing a line and arming one's self against anything that crosses that line.

Collapse -

Delbert

by santeewelding In reply to The most solemn obligatio ...

I have come to respect your writing. I take you as thoughtful. I take your latest comment as thoughtful. In your brevity, however, you leave out too much. As put, you appear to disallow "arming" against tyranny, itself by my definition armed.

Collapse -

I find it troubling . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Delbert

..... that so many people, both citizens of the U.S. or otherwise, presume to define exactly what may or may not fall under the umbrella of one's rights.

Truth be known, in a nutshell, at least in the USA, regardless of said right, unless the people have specifically granted to government the power to prevent it - by way of Constitutional Article or Amendment - then anything and everything falls under said umbrella.

It should simply not be debatable, since it's a matter of record. But people want to debate it anyway, probably for the same reason they want to debate everything else regarding one's rights - they personally disagree with something that someone else does or has, and they want to stop it or take it.

Related Discussions

Related Forums