|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Jun 18, 2010 1:00:32 GMT -5
The history of governmental change is rooted in violent revolution. New kings overthrew old kings. Dictators rise to power in a military coup. Even modern democracy is the product of citizens usurping power from their rulers through war and armed insurrection.
In today's world, does an inherent right exist for a people to violently overthrow their government? If so, under what circumstances is that right justly acted upon?
|
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 18, 2010 1:45:31 GMT -5
This should be like a project on the moon, overthrowing governments, lets start with Estonia!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2010 1:55:56 GMT -5
Yes.
If the government is not doing their job, the people have to act. Be it through peaceful reforms or violent revolution, that doesn't matter.
Confucius said that it will inevitable be so that a new period (a new dynasty or government) will be very good in the start (in his reasoning because they are chosen by the heavens). But in due time they will corrupt, turn bad, lazy,... That means that the heavens have chosen a new ruler (in Confucius' theory), so basically that the old institution is done for and a new will have to arise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2010 4:59:49 GMT -5
This should be like a project on the moon, overthrowing governments Agree! We just need to make sure the government needs to be overthrown in the first place.What? Why? What is happening there that makes the government needing to be overthrown? I was going to say we should start with the dictatorships in the world...About the right to a violent revolution... I agree that the population has a right to revolution, but should avoid at all costs making it violent. This is much easier said than done tough. But there are a few rare cases (being one the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, where the only blood dropped was from 3 or 4 people shot by the forces of the government), and if the majority of the population, together with high powers, wants to make a revolution, then it is much easier to make it in a non-violent way. Unfortunately it is very rare to have high powers in favor of revolutions, as they usually mean the loss of power by those people. But I'm drifting now... what I meant is that: if you can make a non-violent revolution, better, but if the situation is really bad, then it is more acceptable to make a violent revolution, as long as that revolution is beneficial to the majority of the population (and not beneficial in that way of saying "they need someone to control them and someone they can obey to", that is bull... uh... poo). |
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Jun 18, 2010 19:48:38 GMT -5
The history of governmental change is rooted in violent revolution. New kings overthrew old kings. Dictators rise to power in a military coup. Even modern democracy is the product of citizens usurping power from their rulers through war and armed insurrection. In today's world, does an inherent right exist for a people to violently overthrow their government? If so, under what circumstances is that right justly acted upon? I recently studied Apartheid in South Africa and it got me thinking. The only reason people resort to violence in a revolution is because all non-violent forms are closed off. Mandela only resorted to violence because, as he said, non-violence was a poor strategy. The whites didn't want to give up their supremacy, and as long as the non-whites used only non-violent methods of protest the whites would stay on top. That's basically how it is, people are forced into a violent revolution because the government never wants to change or give up power. (Well I shouldn't say never, because the only reason apartheid came to an end in SA was because the President changed the laws. But it rarely happens.) |
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Jun 18, 2010 19:59:35 GMT -5
How violent are we talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Jun 18, 2010 22:00:10 GMT -5
You guys probably already saw this, but I thought it fits well with the debate:
John makes a great point by saying that with violent revolutions we have to rebuild everything and the people that build it hang on to it and they become the "establishment".
The point is that it is better to change things from within peacefully and use the advantages of what already exists instead of knocking it down first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevak on Jun 19, 2010 0:34:56 GMT -5
Well, I was just about to quote John Lennon, but Ricky sorta got in front of me. Well Imma do it anyway. Lyrics form the song revolution, are exactly what I feel in this debate. Nuff said. It's always wrong to do anything violently. John makes a great point by saying that with violent revolutions we have to rebuild everything and the people that build it hang on to it and they become the "establishment". The point is that it is better to change things from within peacefully and use the advantages of what already exists instead of knocking it down first. ^this |
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on Jun 19, 2010 23:28:19 GMT -5
The pen may be mightier than the sword, but the sword is certainly easier to use and to understand.
I believe violent revolution is never a good option, but at times a necessary one. In the words of Squall "It's hard for me to explain... I wish...everything could be settled without resorting to violence...and there would be no need for battles. Like you've been preaching, it would be wonderful if things could be settled by discussion. The only problem with that is that it takes too much time. Especially if the others are not willing to listen. So I believe that fighting is inevitable at times. It's really sad. That's all I have to say. I hope you understand someday. I think the world needs both people like you and people like us. Thank you for all your help. Good bye."
|
|
lupin
Meteorite
boom boom
Posts: 42
|
Post by lupin on Jul 2, 2010 14:51:36 GMT -5
well, my country had a revolution the past century because this guy with a funny mustache had been on power too long, the rich pepole where geting richer and the poor pepole where getting poorer, he di built a lot of trains and we thank him for that but he wasted lot of money in the army and killed a lot of oposing pepole, i dont think he was actually that bad cause he was a mere pupet to his party. so this guy tried to bring him down and he atacked towns with his small army (just atacked never did anything worse than killing policemen) and when they controlled the very FIRST city (a small city with no strategic value) he gave up the country and fleed to france. the problem here is the new government dindt kick the evil political party and things kinda ended up the same, so a new revolutin started and after a lot of smoke you could see 4 groups. A:the ones who wanted their land for everyone, B:the ones who wanted all the same. C:some weird guy who just wanted to go around killing stuff D:a guy who just took advantaje of the situations, so then when A got their leader killed and for some reason half of C just dissapeared. the reamining pepole entered victorious to the capital and declared that everything was over, 2 months later the pope sent us a french emperor to rule and he was pretty nice when he adapted ( he eventually got kicked for being fench ) and history book claim we won and place everyone on the same side.. i dont know against who.
we are still pertty eFed up and we have to cross the border to find jobs.
mexico.
|
|
bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Jul 2, 2010 15:19:11 GMT -5
So my country (Iceland) is arguably the most peaceful country in the world. We don't have an army and we haven't been in a war since the middle ages (and that was civil war) and two years ago when 3-5000 people stood outside the parliament and just was making noises and throwing yogurt at the building we called it a revolution and the government collapsed.
Anyways I still believe a violent revolution is a necessary evil sometimes. Freedom often comes at the price of blood. But most of the times violent revolution is just changing one dictator for another and the ones that suffer are the people. Then it is obviously not justifiable.
"People shouldn't be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people"
|
|
lupin
Meteorite
boom boom
Posts: 42
|
Post by lupin on Jul 2, 2010 20:46:41 GMT -5
it is only a revolution if its violent (seriously check diccionary)
|
|
|
|
Post by Enemynarwhal on Jul 3, 2010 0:35:03 GMT -5
It depends what the goverment is doing. Basically a violent revolution is not an inherent right, it only exist when basic human rights are being violated. This is because war can be considered a violation of human rights. No matter what (unless we start having wars on the moon or something) there will be people involved in the war who did not want to be there. There will be children and men and women caught in the crossfire, and there will be many innocent deaths. So the only way to justify a violent revolution would be if there would be many pointless deaths of innocents anyways. Just because you're willing to die for your cause doesn't mean other people are too. In any case some form of peaceful revolution should be tried first.
|
|
bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Jul 3, 2010 20:10:12 GMT -5
it is only a revolution if its violent (seriously check diccionary) Ok so revolution is maybe too strong a word but it doesn't change the discussion. Most of us, maybe everyone, got the intended meaning. |
|
lupin
Meteorite
boom boom
Posts: 42
|
Post by lupin on Jul 5, 2010 14:31:57 GMT -5
it is only a revolution if its violent (seriously check diccionary) Ok so revolution is maybe too strong a word but it doesn't change the discussion. Most of us, maybe everyone, got the intended meaning. i know i just had to say it, could not resist |
|
