posted
Some thoughts we rarely have. That can be both good and bad -- after all, many things do not deserve thought. HOWEVER, at the same time, many things that do deserve thought are overlooked.
Here is one that has evoked a lot of thought (on a relative scale) from me:
What would cause you to revolt? Yeah, you heard me. What would cause you to stand up, take a gun, and act to overthrow the government.
Please be honest.
My answer? I have not formulated it in a proper format, so it shall remain in my mind (or, as we say in Hebrew, moakh) for now.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be more likely to overthrow a society. A government is often a reflection of the society it rules. If we reached a level in which our society was rotting and stagnating, especially a Fahrenheit 451 sort (as to attitude, not specifics), then I would do all I could to overturn the society.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would only revolt if the Government had already, in my mind, revolted against the People. The way I look at it, since the People are the true supreme executive power they can never revolt against themselves...only a government can revolt against the people. So when a people rises up against a government they are putting back in line a body that had usurped their power.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost revolted when Bush won, but I am of a short stature, and alas, no one takes my political views seriously around here. Posts: 925 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it would probably depend on what other people are doing. This government is currently doing things that are nearly revolt-worthy, but clearly me trying to fight back violently on my own is less effective at changing it than working within the more rational system we have right now. If everyone else was abandoning the legal process, though, I'd probably have to join them.
Or, at the point when the legal process stopped functioning more effectively than violent anarchy, then I'd probably think rebellion would be okay to make critical changes. That hasn't happened yet.
Or if certain extreme violations of my rights occurred - if they took my life or liberty away without me doing any crime, for instance. If they instituted a draft, it would merit that. Or if they randomly started killing people or throwing them in jail. And so on and so forth...
posted
I would be far more likely to abandon my country than violently revolt. In fact, I have given this quite a bit of thought recently. In fact, I have a three prong test, one prong for each branch of government. First, if the executive branch undertakes another unilateral war based on the doctrine of pre-emptive action, it will have passed its test. The legislative branch need only pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The judicial branch needs to overturn Roe v. Wade. If two of those three things happen, I will apply for emigration to Canada.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably the only thing that could push me to revolt, as in take up arms, would be if they were to come into my house, my property and try to take it or my children away from me. Like a seizure, without warrant or reason. I can't think of anything else that would make me that desparate..
posted
I tend to agree with Farmgirl. Maybe I don’t have a very good imagination, but given the current form of government in the US I can’t imagine a reason that I would take up arms against it. I guess the only way I could be forced to revolt would be that a dictator abolished the legislative and/or judicial branches of government and instituted martial law.
I also agree that Demosthenes’ three issues are very important but I would refine them somewhat.
First, I don’t believe that there is never a reason to use a doctrine of pre-emptive action. I think that in the most recent war the government tried to make the argument that pre-emptive action was necessary and failed. Thus my event would be that the executive branch entered into another unilateral war based on the doctrine of pre-emptive action when pre-emptive action wasn’t warranted.
Second, although it seems like a semantic difference I wouldn’t have a problem with a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriages as long as it specifically allowed some form of legal union of homosexual couples granting them the same rights as married couples. Ultimately, I can agree to the term “marriage” being reserved for use to describe a religious union of a man and a woman, as long as unions of members of the same sex are allowed using a different term.
Finally, although I personally believe it is immoral to use abortion as method of birth control, I am opposed to trying to legislate when and if abortions should be allowed. I could tolerate some restrictions on the use of abortion, but an outright ban would definitely be a problem for me.
Unlike Demosthenes, I would not feel compelled to leave the country if these things came to be. Neither would I be willing to take up arms against the government. However, I think that I would feel compelled to drop everything I was doing and become politically active in a way that would effect reversal of those political decisions.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm. I'm kinda liking IdemosthenesI's 3-prong test. Although on point two, doesn't a constitutional ammendment have to be approved by all the states? So are you saying you'd go just if it made it through the legislative part of the process, or not until when/if it actually becomes a part of the consitution?
Edit: Sorry, not all the states, but enough to pass.... is it 1/2 or 2/3? Government class was a long time ago, I'm kinda ashamed I don't remember this. I think it's 2/3...
posted
I'm also much more likely to leave than use violence.
Similar to demosthenes, I'm awaiting the government's actions on those issues. In two years, I'll be ready to apply for internship/residency. If laws and society seem to be heading toward a permanent conservative position, then I will apply for foreign residencies. I know this makes it very hard to practice in the US later (you have to do another residency in the US). So it's only an option if things look irreversibly bad.
Otherwise, I would use violence in cases where the US government took a radical and significant shift toward military or religious rule.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, I think 3/4 of the state's have to ratify an amendment after congress gets through with it. One reason we have such a limited number of amendments.
For a revolt to succeed against the federal government of the United States, a significent proportion of the armed services would have to either be in revolt or declare that they wouldn't take sides in the fight. So that would be my criterion for taking an active role in a rebellion. Otherwise, I'd feel I was throwing my life away for no reason. I would still speak out about injustice and tyranny before that threshold is met, but I wouldn't be fighting in the streets.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would only revolt if the government attempted to take power away from the people. As our system of governing is selected by the people for the people there is no need for popular revolt. One can peacefully change policies through peaceful protest etc.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
First of all, notice that I stipulated that the pre-emptive action the U.S. took would have to be unilateral (and I count shadow coalitions with only one other major power as being unilateral.) Maye I'm just being naive but I believe that if there were actual evidence of WMDs and not merely a strong belief that they were there, we would not have had to go in alone. I assume the same for future conflicts. Notice, by the way, that the European Union seems to be doing a much better job with Iran than we could ever have hoped to do by ourselves.
Also, I have to make the point that I don't necessarily agree 100% with unlimited abortion rights. For me, that test is merely an indicator that the Judicial branch has lost any accountability to the minority. My feelings on abortion are a lot more complicated.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
