At what point is violent civil unrest against a government justified?

[StringJunky]

Looking at the incoming US administration as an example. Does one have to passively accept that a democratically elected government that turns out to be subversive, seeks to undo the checks and balances of its country's Constitution, remodelling it to create a long term dictatorship and leader beyond the normal time limit, have the ethical right and mandate to do so?

Edited November 13 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

That would be highly dependent on the country and also how you define "justified".

But generally speaking, there are ways to undermine democracy even while staying within the boundary of constitutional law. After all, the term limits in the US were an amendment to the constitution.

Perhaps a bit strange is the second amendment, which some folks declare to be a safeguard against tyranny. But I suspect specifically those guys see things a bit differently now.

[studiot]

45 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Looking at the incoming US administration as an example. Does one have to passively accept that a democratically elected government that turns out to be subversive, seeks to undo the checks and balances of its country's Constitution, remodelling it to create a long term dictatorship and leader beyond the normal time limit, have the ethical right and mandate to do so?

If the government imposes an unfair Tea Tax ?

😀

[MigL]

Or, if you're a tyrant who  doesn't want to leave Office, after being soundly defeated in a fair election, you may think you're justified to stage a treasonous violent coup on the Capital.

[dimreepr]

At what point is violence, justice?

 

[iNow]

19 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Looking at the incoming US administration as an example. Does one have to passively accept that a democratically elected government that turns out to be subversive, seeks to undo the checks and balances of its country's Constitution, remodelling it to create a long term dictatorship and leader beyond the normal time limit, have the ethical right and mandate to do so?

There are numerous steps in between passive acceptance and violent overthrow.

We can discuss whether they’re sufficient or likely to succeed, but violence must IMO be a last resort.

 Even when such a path is chosen, it’s better used only when one has a good chance to realize the desired change through said violence. Given the correlation between gun ownership and voting tendencies, the scale on this one is unbalanced and seems rather lopsided.

[StringJunky]

On 11/14/2024 at 6:21 PM, iNow said:

There are numerous steps in between passive acceptance and violent overthrow.

We can discuss whether they’re sufficient or likely to succeed, but violence must IMO be a last resort.

 Even when such a path is chosen, it’s better used only when one has a good chance to realize the desired change through said violence. Given the correlation between gun ownership and voting tendencies, the scale on this one is unbalanced and seems rather lopsided.

Is it better to have a dictatorship without physical resistance, and all the other tools of applying political instability? Does one passively accept being coercively entered into a state like Russia, China or NK? I'm ignoring whether it's left wing or right wing because the end result is the same on the citizens.

Edited Saturday at 03:59 PM by StringJunky

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Is it better to have a dictatorship without physical resistance, and all the other tools of applying political instability? Does one passively accept being coercively entered into a state like Russia, China or NK?

I’m just reminding us that there are steps available between physical violence and passive acceptance 

[Peterkin]

On 11/13/2024 at 5:42 PM, StringJunky said:

Looking at the incoming US administration as an example. Does one have to passively accept that a democratically elected government that turns out to be subversive, seeks to undo the checks and balances of its country's Constitution, remodelling it to create a long term dictatorship and leader beyond the normal time limit, have the ethical right and mandate to do so?

Ethical right doesn't come into it; nobody has the power to issue mandates. The UN is not going to send a peacekeeping force to prevent either oppression or civil unrest in the DUSA.

If the majority of voters knowingly elects such a government, and the armed forces recognize its authority, the minority of voters and majority of citizens will passively accept it, one way or another. How knowingly this election happened, I'm not sure. While Trump voters had plenty of evidence from his own mouth and by his own actions, of exactly what he is and what kind of president he intends to be, I don't think most of them understand the issues, the policies or the regime; they don't appreciate the extent of its agenda. Many still believe in The Constitution,  in checks and balances, the legal system and Santa Claus. 

There will be no meaningful resistance until the present supporters become opposers through bitter experience. There will be a great many casualties in the interim. (I wonder when the current statistics on sexual assault and domestic violence will be tallied and published - if ever.) 

Edited Saturday at 04:29 PM by Peterkin

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

it better to have a dictatorship without physical resistance, and all the other tools of applying political instability? Does one passively accept being coercively entered into a state like Russia, China or NK? I'm ignoring whether it's left wing or right wing because the end result is the same on the citizens.

I think Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, Mother Jones, and Martin Luther King had some good ideas on how to resist while letting the violence all be from the other side.  Thus exposing the truth of Asimov's famous axiom: Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.  

It does take some guts to march or strike or lie down in a road, though, so it's always a question of numbers.  Having the internet could help with gathering large flashmobs and organizing mass strikes.  

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Having the internet could help with gathering large flashmobs and organizing mass strikes.  

Until the regime takes absolute control of social media - which they're half-way to accomplishing already. In the US, too, mobility is more of an issue than in the Arab countries: trucks laden with flags and machine guns can patrol the highways and prevent planned gatherings. Much depends, too, on which side local police forces and state militias take. Without them, the revolution has very poor odds. 

[Ken Fabian]

One of the possible uses of AI is likely to be (already is?) the identification, tracking and targeting of political opponents and dissent. Successful revolutions may be becoming impossible. Civil wars, maybe with enough organized opposition. Palace coups, yes. The trough of despair between turning against tyranny and achieving a resurgent and strong democracy and rule of law is likely to be deep and costly and hard to climb out of. Expecting palace coups to bring a return to the rule of law seems a forlorn hope - they advance the most ruthless and lawless.

I don't have any optimism that media, trad or social, will side with democracy and the rule of law over extreme partisanship; they will support the politics that advantages them as businesses and align with that of their paying customers - the businesses that advertise. The public is getting bombarded with so much that is false and misleading that what is true becomes indistinguishable.

Edited Sunday at 09:53 PM by Ken Fabian

[dimreepr]

On 11/17/2024 at 9:47 PM, Ken Fabian said:

One of the possible uses of AI is likely to be (already is?) the identification, tracking and targeting of political opponents and dissent. Successful revolutions may be becoming impossible.

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Hari Seldon, AI is like his psychohistory in that it only really work's at a big enough scale; revolution's will always happen at a scale that's unseeable, until it's too late to stop.