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 November 16 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 November 16 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 November 17 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.

[Skovand]

While I can’t imagine that I’ll ever do anything I do sometimes wonder about this. Not so much directed at the government itself as much as things like damaging forestry equipment or a dam. I think how dams have prevented many fish from breeding well since they use to travel freshwater rivers but now can’t and how because they can’t their are tons of fresh water mollusks whose larvae never make it to adulthood because they can’t attach to the gills of fish they coevolved with because of the dams. Or how cities let more and more wilderness be cut down. 
 

i wonder sometimes if in 200 years the issues compounded by climate change will be so bad eco terrorism is a sort of revolution and if they will look back at us in disgust about how we did not do more. 
 
I can’t imagine it because I hope in humanity I guess . Or rather I believe before it gets as bad as it can, capitalism will drive businesses to do better because they have too. 

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, Skovand said:

eco terrorism is a sort of revolution and if they will look back at us in disgust about how we did not do more.

Eco terrorism might make you feel better, but future generations would benefit far more from large scale infrastructure investments and adaptation, from the election of leaders who generate consensus around funding that a priority. 

Edited Thursday at 03:22 AM by iNow

[Skovand]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Eco terrorism might make you feel better, but future generations would benefit far more from large scale infrastructure investments and adaptation, from the election of leaders who generate consensus around funding that a priority. 

Just to be clear. Eco terrorism would not make me feel better personally. I was in the army for 6 years and while there realized i definitely don’t think most wars are really justifiable outside of being invaded. Though I don’t think it’s going to workout without lots of suffering first, I cling to a hope it will get better.  I think we are going to have tipping points caused by climate change, such as worsening drought which leads to more dams to try to develop more water storage, that messes up more wildlife like mollusks causing water to be less filtered, meaning increases in algae blooms and waste buildup, leading to more problems with water and I think more non native plants will introduce more non native diseases, and wildlife bottlenecking from more Urban development leading to more disease outbreaks. I think it’s just going to be sad before I die, but not really that bad. I think the kids born in 2100 will be the ones that have to deal with how bad it gets. I don’t think electing better people will make a significant change either personally. I think it will have to be a bubble up effect. More citizens protesting against wilderness being cut down, more citizens using consumerism to cause systems like the meat industry to collapse and everyone deciding to stop dropping chemicals into their lawns and fighting HOAs on native plant wildlife gardens and so on. I just don’t think the bulk of people are going to start to do this for a few more generations and once it gets so bad there is very little to deny. 
 

so what I was trying to say is that I don’t think anything now really justifies eco terrorism. I think protesting is obviously justifiable. Chaining up in front of forests and showing up on lawns of certain houses and so on. 
 

but that in 100 years when a tipping points are happening and it’s starting to really show in your face signs people may begin to make better choices. I have hope that they will. But I don’t think so also. I think it will continue to get worse and worse. I think around 200 years from now if this stays on track, that’s when smaller groups people will have to violently fight back against the infrastructure which will hurt many. I think that’s when humanity will be looking back at us wondering why we did not do more. When people in third world nations are dying by the millions because of heat waves, water shortages, and when even first world nations have to turn off power and water and the poor suffering worse than ever. I think they will wonder why we did not do more. 

Edited Thursday at 09:56 AM by Skovand

[iNow]

Okay, or we could advocate now for changes we agree are needed and insert economic levers that make more sustainable choices more profitable