In your opinion, how 'bad' would the government of your country have to be before you were justified in overthrowing it, and bringing about chaos (V for Vendetta style)?
When does it become ethical to overthrow your government?
- Thread starter mountainhare
- Start date
Bringing about chaos is simply useless, and only serves to feed one person's misanthropy. Overthrowing the government is a right of the People at large, and, theoretically, they can do it any time they wish. In the American tradition, we require severe malfeasance by the government, and as a reading of our Declaration of Independence shows, we are growing e'er more tolerant of our government.
In the abstract, a government ought to be replaced when it consistently fails to meet its obligations in the social contract, but how we define that failure brings as varied an outcome as there are people to have an opinion on it. For instance, some people would say the Padilla conviction is an example of the government upholding its end of the bargain. Regardless of whether or not he's guilty, I say the government has failed.
To the other, though, I'm not about to overthrow the government. I still have my vote, and, besides, it's not worth doing all that work for the American people, who are in their turn determined to flush away everything good they purport to believe in.
In the abstract, a government ought to be replaced when it consistently fails to meet its obligations in the social contract, but how we define that failure brings as varied an outcome as there are people to have an opinion on it. For instance, some people would say the Padilla conviction is an example of the government upholding its end of the bargain. Regardless of whether or not he's guilty, I say the government has failed.
To the other, though, I'm not about to overthrow the government. I still have my vote, and, besides, it's not worth doing all that work for the American people, who are in their turn determined to flush away everything good they purport to believe in.
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
I gotta go with Thomas Jefferson on this one:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states."
-- Declaration of Independence
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states."
-- Declaration of Independence
I like Thomas Jeffersons view on that question.
" My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. "
"No man will ever carry out of the Presidency the reputation which carried him into it."
"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "
If they abridge or violate the humans rights of the general population.
Or if they banned all alcohol and soda. Then, I'd probably pretty pissed, too.
But, mainly the human rights thing.
Tiassa:
Yeah, but that's quite often what happens after you overthrow the current ruling regime.
Here, let's assume there are only two alternatives: Live under a corrupt regime, or overthrow it and plunge your country into chaos.
How 'bad' must the current regime be, before the chaos option becomes feasible?
Yeah, but that's quite often what happens after you overthrow the current ruling regime.
Here, let's assume there are only two alternatives: Live under a corrupt regime, or overthrow it and plunge your country into chaos.
How 'bad' must the current regime be, before the chaos option becomes feasible?
in my own mind it is ethical to blow up the house of parliment right now. but ofcourse i cant do that because its against the law, but not against my ethics.
peace.
peace.
not very bad, putting up tax on milk is enough for me to go crazy and let off shots.
peace,
Those that take control of the bad situation COULD make it even worse for the citizens.
Not really, because he mixed up 2 different things:
Morality and ability. The OP's question was about the morality of the issue not the ability to do so.
The question really is an oxymoron, because:
1. There is no objective morality.
2. According to ANY government, overthrowing it would be an illegal act.
So the answer is never or always...
Not if you're an immoral person.
Point good.
The founders of the US rebelled about taxes on tea. And not even very good tea, at that.
as soon as governments systematicly disregard simple human rights and directly harm people but theres no point of starting a rebellion if it won't be successful and can't garantee a new stable system...
and it gives the news something to fill the summer slump with...
and it gives the news something to fill the summer slump with...
I-Am-Invisible said:
And yet, humans are, by nature, imperfect. And happens to be billions of us. No system devised by humans can be guaranteed. As American society shows, a lack of good faith by those participating in any allegedly noble scheme erodes constantly the purported nobility, and degrades the quality of life sought by such schemes. We may have mastered the art of collecting wealth in the United States, but we've also reduced the diversity and value of what that wealth can buy.
You need not reach all the way to the Oval Office or the halls of Congress to find evidence of this degradation. Just look to the nearest housing subdevelopment. A person's home is no longer a castle: when you buy a home, you are often required to promise the neighborhood that you won't paint the house certain colors, won't let the lawn grow even a fraction of an inch beyond a certain threshold, plant certain flowers or trees on the property, or even park in your driveway.
Welcome to America, where community life reflects what has become of our community soul: all talk, no substance. Right now, no matter how bad things get, there really is no point to a new American revolution. It may be too late to save the United States of America from itself; we may already be too far down the dangerous path that leads to the Dark Side. And we are expected to revel in the power that brings. One might save the world and be greeted by the American rank and file, who angrily demand what the hell one person thinks he's doing presuming the right to even save the world, goddamnit, and who the hell ever decided that the world needed saving? Such arrogance, demanding that freedom itself is essential to being free!
It's a tough call, but the only reason there's no point to rebellion is that the people have decided it should be that way. Fine, let them suffer. But I won't convict their children of such evil when the unfortunate generations never stood a chance. The people need rebellion, if for no other reason than to realize that they are something more than an automated player in a cheap soap opera.
Last edited: