Time for revolution? Really? Where should we draw the lines?

First, I would like to ask my fellow believers in a free and just society for a responsible and constructive handling of this subject. Regardless of what shock jocks and politicos might think, the revolutionary lexicon is not a political cudgel. It is the product of centuries of deadly serious struggle to achieve a world worth living in. My suggestion would be that you say whatever you believe, but say it as if half of your family disagreed with you and might end up fighting for something you consider pure evil unless you can show them reason.

Second, a disclaimer: It is not my intent to advocate any criminal or otherwise violent act, or even really to discuss whether or not there should be a revolution in the US.

What I do advocate is that people think and talk reasonably about their principles before they find themselves in an angry crowd that doesn't know what it's going to do, because such crowds rarely decide to do the right thing.


So, all that handled, here's where we are:
Discussion of violence in the name of revolution (or at least in the name of partisan politics, depending who you ask) has not only become more common, but has risen into more influential circles. Some like the idea. Some find it unnerving. Either way, I suspect we can agree that the probability of a revolution, however low or high it might be, is going up, not down.

I don't necessarily consider revolution a bad thing. However, I know very well that if the revolution that is currently brewing breaks out, it will be nothing but bloodshed and division, because there is not a shared understanding of motives or justifications, and therefore there is a tendency to distrust and factionalism.

If the specific ends and means of a revolutionary movement were supported by at least a plurality of the population, and began coordinated nation-wide resistance on a single date, I believe that it could succeed in forcing a political solution in the short term with very little loss of life or damage to property. Such a revolutionary movement could even theoretically achieve a bloodless victory by means of civil disobedience.
If it doesn't meet those criteria but it happens anyway, I believe that the United States will be divided, go to war with itself, and most of us will never be happy again for the rest of our lives.

So, let's talk about it. Where does one draw the lines? Please note that I said lines- in the plural- not only is there a line we cannot let others cross, there is a line that we cannot cross. Revolutions create their fair share of tyrants because they don't usually draw that second line.

At what point do we mutually agree that we will not only object to the authorities, but attempt to stop them in some way? After that, how far do we go before we mutually agree to stand down and complete the job politically?

reply to post by The Vagabond


well family is still family no matter our opinions and would i pick up a gun and kill my own blood for my own ideals

the answer is no i wouldnt.

if we really live in a open and free society bloodshed for ones ideals goes agianst the very core of the beliefs of this country.

all ideals have the right to exist beside one another i think that was what freedom of speech and expression truly mean.

my ideals are not better than the next persons and their ideals arent any better than my own.

if men and women are truly created equal all the thoughts they or we all have are equal they all have the right to exist.


but personally i am not prepared to kill another human being in this country for my beliefs i do not have the right as the other person does not have the right to kill me for his.

freedom and equality for all not just one side of the arguement.

thats my take maybe i didnt understand the point of your op.

My opinion on revolution is that it shouldn't happen. I feel that a violent revolution is the wrong course of action. There is absolutely no "point of no return" ever. Everything that is wrong in this country can be fixed using thought, and non violent action.

I personally feel that if a revolution were to occur in this country, those who perpetuate it are traitors to the Constitution as underlined in Article III Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Those who wish to depose this Constitutionally elected government through a violent revolution in my opinion are levying war against We the People. The only reason that a person would have to start a violent revolution is to take away the rights of the people to elect whom they choose to.

I personally believe that the people who advocate a violent revolution in this country are fascists who wish to dominate and control what others do and say, these people no matter what they say do not respect the Constitution, they do not respect liberty, they do not respect freedom. The proof is that they would choose to violently take away the people's choices for who they decided to elect because they personally do not like that Constitutionally elected choice.

reply to post by neo96


So far you are quite on track in my opinion. Under most circumstances I wouldn't take up arms against my own blood or anybody else for that matter, especially not over raw ideology.

But if there is an extreme situation where it becomes the lesser of two evils, I'd like to know where you think that is. My reasoning is that some people, as we can plainly see, do believe in violence in the name of ideology, and I believe by setting a legitimate standard for what does and does not warrant the use of force, it is possible that at least some of the people who are too ready for violence will be able to see if they are going too far.

For example, suppose that the federal government started rounding up and executing all Muslims in the US. It is extremely unlikely, but history shows that it's dangerous to say "it could never happen here". If my brother was rounding up and killing innocent people, I'd prefer to start off by fighting other people and hope that my brother would live long enough to surrender, but if push came to shove, yes, I'd put an end to his evil at all costs.

I think that's a clearly legitimate line to draw, and when I have that as a baseline to compare against, a lot of other things that I might still feel very very strongly about are put into proper perspective, so that I can see that some things, but certainly not all things, are worth a fight, because that extreme consideration that I give to my brother's life, which takes A LOT to trump, should be the same consideration that I give to ALL people.

Well, supposedly it already happened, without shedding a drop of blood.

Yet.

The Restore America Plan appears to be moving right along, as insignificant as one may perceive it to be. But it wasn't so insignificant, because several state capitol buildings were locked down when notice was sent to all 50 Governors.

Did you know you all have a new President? Yep.

If enough people got behind that movement, and backed it up, I could see that group posing a serious threat to the US CORPORATION that we are all currently enslaved to.

Something like revolution will happen when the split occurs in the military, and the insane corruption and greed are forcibly removed from the positions of power.

Honestly for me at this point, I would rather be a part of what I see them doing than what we are now. Even if it means being led by people that are following the words of the Bible. Nah, the Bible isn't so bad. Can't be any worse than what's in place now.

The Restore America Plan. Research it for those that don't know.

Better to swear allegiance to the Ten Commandments and some good folk, than allegiance to the putrid evil that has systemically infested this catastrophe. I'm seriously thinking about it.

ETA:

Originally posted by The Vagabond
At what point do we mutually agree that we will not only object to the authorities, but attempt to stop them in some way?

We don't. Not on an internet forum, by phone, by email, regular mail, or any compromised communication. You'd be a fool.

After that, how far do we go before we mutually agree to stand down and complete the job politically

I was witness yesterday due to my freelance work to a particular speech in a particular private place by a particular candidate. Very little political experience, but made every sense of honesty, good intent, and wholesomeness in me come surging forward to say YES! THESE are the kind of people we need in government.

Needless to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

reply to post by The Vagabond


more often than naught we cant live up to our ideals this has been proven time and time agian

man thats a tough call sitting by and watch people be slaughtered action would have to be taken exhaust every option before you go past that line and even then it wouldnt sit well with me.

personally i would go so far as to stop him and detain him and then let the laws of men decide his fate it will be a fate that he made for himself.

there are other ways to stop people than just a bullet to the head.

sitting here and theorize is one thing but if it acutally happened thats another story noone truly knows what they are capable of until the situtation arises.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


That, along with WhatUKnow's strong objection to violent revolution (not to mention the fact that it's not treason unless you make war or aid another force which does) raises another interesting facet of the discussion.

Is the lack of violence enough to make a revolution ok? At the end of the day, isn't this a guy with the support of a slim minority claiming the job that a majority of us have already given to somebody else?

The objection to violence here is encouraging, but to me that's not a solution- it's just safe operating parameters for the search for a solution.

Even if you aren't using violence, at what point is the ballot box not enough? What conditions make it OK for the Guardians of the Free Republics to say that the current government and its laws and law enforcement are illegitimate and send them letters saying that you are going to stop them if they do not comply with your demands?

I'm not saying they are right or wrong, I'm just trying to get an idea of what the consensus is on our social contract.

reply to post by The Vagabond


adeo moderatio tuendae libertatis, dum aequari velle simulando ita se quisque extollit ut deprimat alium, in difficile est, cavendoque ne metuant, homines metuendo ultro se efficiunt, et iniuriam ab nobis repulsam, tamquam aut facere aut pati necesse sit, iniungimus aliis

"True moderation in defense of political liberties is indeed a difficult thing: Pretending to want fair shares for all, every man raises himself by pressing his neighbor down; our anxiety to avoid oppression leads us to practice it ourselves, the injustice we repel, we visit in turn upon others, as though their were no choice but to do it or suffer it."


These words were written by the Roman historian Livy in the first century B.C.E. The context in which this passage was written may sound all too familiar to us today.

The wealthy nobility of Rome were in possession of most of the "public" (ie, land seized in foreign wars) land at this time, and were also in the habit of profiting wondrously from it. The peoples' Tribunes (the only public officials allowed to be elected from the Plebeian class at the time) were pushing strongly for an Agrarian Reform Bill in the Senate, that would break up the large aristocrat land holdings, and distribute them to the commoners. The Senate, and the Patrician class in general were opposed to this on obvious personal grounds, and felt that any talk of Agrarian Reform was a threat to their class and privileges.

At the height of the political tensions, word arrived that three of Rome's longtime enemies, (The Volscians, Aequians, and Sabines) had united, and were marching through Latin territory plundering and burning at will. The Senate, horrified by this news, appealed to the Tribunes and to the commons to set aside their complaints, and face the matter at hand. They duly instructed the two Consuls for the year to raise the troops. The commons, however, refused to budge. When their names were called in the Campus of Mars, they refused to answer, and when the Consuls sent lictors to arrest those who would not answer, the people appealed to the Tribunes for protection.

Things were at a standstill. The Patricians were unwilling to budge on Agrarian reform, and the Tribunes were unwilling to allow the raising of troops.

Until the enemy had marched all the way up to the gates of Rome itself.

The Tribunes started a rumor among the Commons that the invasion was actually a lie: a clever deceit concocted by the Senate to distract the people from pursuing their political freedoms. It wasn't true, of course. The attack was very much real, and in the end, the political divisions between the upper and lower classes of Rome very nearly spelled disaster for them all.

In the end, it was only by appointing a Dictator (from whose command no appeal to the Tribunes was possible) that the Consuls succeeded in raising troops and crushing their united enemies in the battle that followed.

Appointing a Dictator was, even in ancient Rome, a "big deal", and only ever done as a last resort when threat of foreign invasions was so great that no internal dissent or bureaucratic tardiness could be brooked. Luckily for Rome, the character of its leading men was so great that after having defeated the enemy, and restored peace, the Dictator resigned. This was the mark of greatness that the Roman Republic displayed so prominently: That the sense of civic duty and honor amongst them was so strong, that they could, and did many times, willingly give up near absolute power without pressure, but of their own free accord.


Now, Livy was writing the history of these times when he wrote the quote which I started this post with. And I think it is very relevant to this topic and to these times.

It is, indeed, a difficult thing to stand in defiance of authority, and to fight for ones' political rights and freedoms without ultimately getting carried away. In our righteous zeal to right wrongs and prevent tyranny and oppression, we can easily become tyrants ourselves.

Food for thought.

reply to post by whatukno

I personally feel that if a revolution were to occur in this country, those who perpetuate it are traitors to the Constitution as underlined in Article III Section 3

And ironically the men who wrote that were guilty of Treason themselves..

reply to post by The Vagabond


revolutions rarely spontaneously happen.. there usually has to be rebellions.. small groups of men (and women in this day and age) who stage attacks on Government, or rebel and declare sovereignty for themselves.

Usually feelings have to fester .. but imo, in my studies of history it's not usually the generation that is wronged that starts revolutions, but their descendants .. for example.

Let's assume you support the Government, proud to be an American.. this is how I was raised, my parents favored the Government regardless of who was in power. They might not like this politician or that idea.. but never speak out against the Government, never against the Country..

Then comes my Generation .. we see the wealth vanish before our eyes, we grew up in prosperity and we matured in poverty.. we owe loans our parents never had to deal with, credit debt at 18, 50k+ in student loans, and 100% mortgages.. so young and so burdened.. and politicians, regardless of party, lie, lie,lie .. We don't trust the Government, we don't like their policies, we believe we are better off without them.

So what will our children learn? At our knees they will hear our gripes about Government, our rants as we yell at the TV's when the Government signs away another fortune to private businessmen .. they will be raised with an inherent distrust of government, and will be far less likely to be seduced by it's power and influence.. and since it's highly unlikely the Government will change it's ways, the prospect for the future is increasing poverty, decreasing services, like education, and poor prospects for a better life, the wealth gap expands.. Governments to blame..

imo .. it will be the next generation, in some 20+ years that's far more likely to begin violent opposition.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
What conditions make it OK for the Guardians of the Free Republics to say that the current government and its laws and law enforcement are illegitimate and send them letters saying that you are going to stop them if they do not comply with your demands?

I'm not saying they are right or wrong, I'm just trying to get an idea of what the consensus is on our social contract.

edit on Fri 22 Oct 2010 by The Vagabond because: edit to add link for Restoring America Plan as reference

What conditions? When the money that is forcibly taken from me and the rest of you is:

Abused
Misspent
Stolen
Spent on foreign wars created with manufactured evidence for political gain, in my name.
Created out of thin air as an alternative to getting their heads chopped off for raising taxes to the point there was civil war. Inflation created by fiat currency and fractional reserve banking is just one facade under which tyranny currently hides now, right under our noses.

What conditions? When corruption in government and electronic voting systems has:

Virtually eliminated the possibility for a fair election.
Turned our court system into merely a huge money pool enriching judges, lawyers, and a whole host of other parasites. It's not working for the average citizen. Hell, we can't even understand the law it is so insanely complicated.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Hell, we've got a CIA that is out of control, and we're virtually controlled by a bunch of Zionists with some fantasy of conquering half the middle east for a Greater Israel.

Our system is so inept we can't even have the President prove his own citizenship, for God's sakes!

The conditions are now. No questions about that. The conditions were then. Back when the American people got scammed by the establishment of the federal reserve- and are just now starting to realize it as they watch the latest successive regime and Wall Street drag us kicking and screaming into bankruptcy and deficits the likes of which have never been seen ever.

But Turner has a plan.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I can dig a lot of what you are saying myself, but do we want to revolt against these things because the actual present effects on us constitute an absolutely intolerable violation of our inalienable rights, or does it have just as much to do with the anxiety over what may happen if it goes further? And in that case don't we create the very same anxieties for others when we start exercising power, and thus just by getting our way "justify" a similar revolution against ourselves in the minds of some people?

On the unjustly taken and misspent tax money for instance. How much money is worth a fight? Right now, truth be told, if somebody tried to rob me on the street for whatever was in my pockets, I'd fight him to the death for it, because I've got nothing to spare- a fight over 100 bucks for me can feel like a fight for my whole livelihood. And although I'm pretty sure that my stance on this is unreasonable and counterproductive in the grand scheme, I can see how a lot of working class guys would have my back in that situation.

On the other hand, if Bill Gates were to kill somebody to avoid being robbed of 100 dollars, a lot of those same people who I think would support my right to fight would say he was way out of line.

If I'm right about that (maybe I'm not), wouldn't that seem to suggest that it's based not on the money itself, but on how much damage is done to the underlying right to live?
That can get quite messy when you blow it up from a one on one fight to a nation-wide conflict, whether violent or peaceful. What if 15% of the population are having their livelihoods intolerably damaged right now, but the instability of a revolution damages another 30% of the population to protect the rights of 15%, while the majority, despite being subject to the same outrages, are not hurt enough to justify revolution? It isn't the privilege of the majority to demand that a minority accept tyranny, but it is not the privilege of the minority to turn the tables and visit injustice on an even larger group either. Might we be obliged to follow the plan that the people already agreed to and fought for, and make sacrifices to cope with our imperfections until we have defined a more effective model that has an even broader agreement, for which we can then vote (even if this vote cannot be carried out through government channels but must be done through our communities), and keep revolution as a resort only against the naked refusal of those in authority to relinquish power when so mandated by the people?

This also ties into the line where we STOP a revolution. Do we need to fix everything by force, or is it enough to affect smaller changes which make it possible to accomplish the actual goals through government?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The conditions are NOW! you are right! In my opinion we are already way past the line! It is time to deal with this problem of the corruption now!

I think that one way to try to resolve the problems without violence is by starting to make people accountable with the lives of them self and their family! Seriously think about it. If every person who swore an oath of office, from the police, to the president knew that if they committed a crime against the people, they would be executed, I think they would be a little more honest. I also think that people would finally feel like they are getting justice. That being said, no one forces these people to run for office, so they better feel strongly about being able to do it honestly, or they should just choose to stay out of it.

I've a few things to say here as this is an interesting topic.

1. When speaking of or carrying out a true nationwide revolution we must remember that power must never rest on any one persons shoulders. The moral character and integrity of the Romans is unfortunately something of a fairytale among modern leaders.

2. We must also remember that the ends do not always justify the means. A lot of people can end up getting hurt for a seemingly noble cause for example, the Patriot Act epic.org...

3. Just because they call it non-violent passive resistance doesn't mean it isn't violent, you will get beaten. Sometimes it is possible to rebel without personally commiting violent acts but at this point in history (for it is constantly being written) the U.S gov't has so much firepower that you'd have to be crazy to think they'd give up their governance without a fight. However nonviolent is the best way to go because bullies get tired of constantly bullying, so just grab your ankles and take it and your message will be conveyed.

4. I think perhaps this is my most important point so take heed. I'm sure there are tons and tons of users here on ATS that would love to start a revolution and many of you are probably organized enough to do it but even if every american on ATS banded together and fought the good fight, we would all lose without the support of the rest of America. The revolution cannot succeed when everyone just doesn't care.This I think is where the government's plan of dumbing us down via the media backfired and this is the most beautifully horrendous thing that i've noticed about my generation (I'm 18 years old, you do the math). We just don't care about the gov't and what they do or try to do. Its beautiful because if they try to *snip* ( with us directly, we just wouldn't let them get away with it we'd exact our revenge. That's why the powers that be don't march down the street and declare martial law, we wouldn't let it happen. We don't care about the stock market because we have no stock. We don't care about the housing market because we don't have mortgages. We don't care about credit crunch because those of us that are smart enough (most of the peeps I know) don't use credit cards arbitrarily. We're seeing how older generations f |_| cked up and learning not to do it while at the same time doing our own thing and not taking stupid bull sh!t. That in itself is a revolution. I dunno take that how you want it thats just my $0.02

Peace, Love
Jacktherer

reply to post by The Vagabond


This may fit in with the “ Big Picture” The people who don’t share the same morals of what is right and wrong, I could honestly care less about. They are most likely the reason we are where we are now. In this example you make

On the unjustly taken and misspent tax money for instance. How much money is worth a fight? Right now, truth be told, if somebody tried to rob me on the street for whatever was in my pockets, I'd fight him to the death for it, because I've got nothing to spare- a fight over 100 bucks for me can feel like a fight for my whole livelihood. And although I'm pretty sure that my stance on this is unreasonable and counterproductive in the grand scheme, I can see how a lot of working class guys would have my back in that situation.

The amount of money makes absolutely no difference It is the fact that robing someone is wrong!
It is not counter productive and should be stopped. We don’t need people like this in our country if they feel “oh well it would only a little money” bull! It was not theirs to take. The next time then it might be something else that they want. Will that be ok too? We need to stop worrying about offending someone and start to enforce self responsibility and common since. Make people accountable for there actions.

reply to post by RedBird


If I'm not mistaken that is the story of Cincinnatus is it not?

OMG !!!!
U post this NOW after I just
saw that wikileaks release
on Iraq?

Now is not the time for me
to answer that else I may
go to prison for a very long
time.

to be continued at a later date

reply to post by xyankee


I'm not going to take a big pro-robbery stance here or anything, but how far do you go to stop a robber just because he's wrong? If you don't succeed in killing him at first do you pursue him at high speeds through a school zone to try and catch him and kill him? If you hit a kid do you stop then, or keep chasing him and risk another?

reply to post by The Vagabond


I gave you a star simply because you nailed our opinionated nature as humans precisely when you stated to pretend half your family disagreed with your argument. To me this is the most important point. If we all agreed to stop lies, greed, corruption from infiltrating our system of government then we should all agree. It has been said if you do not stand for something you stand for nothing at all...so let's all stand against lies, greed, and corruption. That we can agree, that we want a better world, a peaceful world. Where fear is not injected onto us daily. Where we do not have to suspect everyone is out to lie to us to protect themselves from the lies they think you are selling them.

There is no need for a revolution if we agree to simply stand on our own two feet and say that the system is broke, that it is the result of lies, greed, and corruption and we wish to form a more fair system that addresses our needs. Indeed if we did just this there would be no bloodshed. There will only be bloodshed when we stand firm against anothers idea of the proper role of government and how those others would like the government to secure a bright and happy future in protecting their interests. Whatever system we have it needs to be fair and without lies, greed, and corruption. Whatever my personal beliefs are I am willing to set those aside to attain a system that is free of lies, greed, and corruption. How to accomplish that can only be done by people who share the same focus. There will always be those that want to be able to lie, to horde, and to cheat. We must recognize those tactics and create a system that can put a stop to it, or stop the temptation to engage in such behavior. It is entirely achievable, if we just came together on the simple points first and worry about the rest later.

What do you think would happen if :

We have a representative from each town organize a vote! Would that even be possible? it would surely be fair. If we were able to ask the people of the US in total,

Do you feel we need to institute a new leadership, Yes or No
Or
Should the current standing system and government be removed? Yes or No

I think the last poll taken said that 56% of the people were fed up with the current path of government. If this was to hold true after the vote the current government could leave peacefully or they would be the enemy. The population of the people would have spoken!

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It isn't the privilege of the majority to demand that a minority accept tyranny, but it is not the privilege of the minority to turn the tables and visit injustice on an even larger group either.

But by that line of reasoning, we'd all be having a spot of tea right now in allegiance to the Queen, and/or the South would not have to rise again...

On May 13, 1865, a month after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Private John J. Williams of the 34th Indiana became the last man killed in the Civil War, in a battle at Palmito Ranch, Texas. The final skirmish was a Confederate victory.

The point is that only a very few percentage end up fighting, while the rest watch and get out of the way.

A plausible scenario for the start of the next Revolution:

A group like the Restore America Plan gets enough backing and power to convince one of the states to formally secede from the US CORPORATION of America. To the point that the feds are not allowed in the state for enforcement of anything whatsoever. And they take their national guard with them, recalling all the people back to their state. And it just so happens that this state has control over a small arsenal of nuclear weapons, and manages to reprogram the launch protocol away from the Pres/Sec. of Def. This also includes some small tactical nukes, which they threaten to use on any invasive force attempt into the state. They completely unplug from the system, and go it alone.

Feds say no way, threaten to assemble military at the state's borders and retake the state by force. But then the surrounding states say no way to that, and recall all their troops to oppose the feds as well. And then the fatal first shot gets fired in the form of a Tomahawk CM or three.

That could possibly happen- but of course, so could a lot of other things. It might be as simple as the ATF/FBI raiding and killing a number of militia. Or another Rodney King incident. Or another Waco.

There won't be much time for philosophy once the shooting starts- of that much I am sure.