When does it become reasonable to act out against ruling bodies?

I'm hoping I can achieve some insight as well as some open and honest opinions on the situation. While the recent events might be considered within the range of this subject, I in no way condone the actions as of late, they simply provoked me to think deeper about our limitations.

The world has a rich and storied history of lesser men rising to overthrow the authority. All the way back to the days of ancient man, there has been the want of men in power to gain more power and to control people that they feel are beneath them.

As a result of this, eventually, the underlings reach a point where they decide to break free from the master/slave paradigm and do one of multiple things:

1. Run away.
   
2. Peaceably protest for change.
   
3. Overthrow the power.
   

So let us start with a little overview of the subjects...


Run away.

Up until the modern age, running from power was the popular choice of opposition to control of governing bodies. The concept was simple: if you did not like the way your society was being run, you simply left to one that you did like. In the case that you did not accept any governing body, you were given the option of colonizing your own land that was previously unclaimed.

With the dawn of the colonization era into the modern era, all previously unclaimed land was claimed in the name of already existing countries or private property. Therefore, the option for people to create their own societies and experiment with new ways of governing and living became impossible.

The most notable examples of running away from power came with various groups in the early colonization days of America, mostly noting differences in religion and political ideologies as the cause.

Today, creation of a "new" society is literally impossible. Regardless of where you are located, an attempt to create an independent society will still be held as subject to the country that claims power over the land you seek to use. The only exceptions to this would be uninhabitable zones located at the north and south poles.

People who wish to leave the sanction of their current governing bodies have to first seek consent from that governing body, seek consent from the governing body they choose to move to, and ultimately choose between a set of limited options as most governing bodies in the modern world share the same basic forms of government control over the lives of their inhabitants.


Peaceably protest for change.

Peaceable change is perhaps the most desired of any situation. In older forms of government, peaceable change was made impossible by rule of divine right and absolute power. Only with the advancement of civil rights and human rights did peaceable change become available to the populace.

Perhaps to most popular instance of peaceful protest ending in noticeable results is the independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi to guide the people of India to independence from Britain. It is wise to note that with the exception of India, the effectiveness of nonviolent protest to initiate change has never been effective in a heavily populated or country with an extended landmass.


Overthrow the power.

The ever living taboo: revolution. It seems as the more time goes on, the overthrow of a power, be it in a violent or bloodless revolution, has become taboo to speak of or discuss. Yet, at the same time, it is through this method that freedom has been won countless times throughout history - more so than peaceable change and running away combined and multiplied by 100.

Throughout history there came a time in some societies where they were not given the other options and were left with no choice but to overthrown the governing body. For some it was not so much a matter of choice, but a matter of ease. Not all overthrows of ruling bodies was necessarily a good thing. In some cases it resulted in tyrannical rule even worse than was installed prior. In other cases it resulted in unyielding freedom and power to the citizens... for a time.

Revolution has become a dirty word in "modernized countries" because we ignore the fact that it still exists. Even in the past decade there have been more than 25 revolutions or revolution attempts in many different countries worldwide. Some were successful, some failed. Some produced damaging results, others gave the populace greater freedom and control of their lives.

It has also become taboo because many believe that revolution has to resort to violence and bloodshed, when there are many accounts when just the people rising en masse against the ruling body was enough to get them to hand over the proverbial keys and/or start respecting the will of the individuals. In many of these cases, not a single life was lost for the cause, yet people continue to believe that revolution will always entail ruthless, cold blooded murder, and thus it is branded in a negative light by all modern countries.

The question to ask is why? Well, the answer to that is quite simple. All those in power with to preserve their power and thus do everything to prevent themselves from losing it. This can be seen by examples around the world as governments clench their grasp on human rights in order to prevent unrest, or when ruling bodies establish propaganda campaigns to insight an external enemy so that people turn away from internal conflict. None of this is new, but are merely tactics that have been used since the dawn of documented civilization.






So the questions are now at hand for a civil and insightful discussion.

* When does it become reasonable to act out against ruling bodies?

* If running away from an unwanted rule is out of the question, how long does peaceable protest last before resorting to overthrow of the system?

* IF peaceable protest garners no response and does not succeed, and overthrow of a system is out of question, then what options remain left for an individual or individuals who wish to live a free and independent lifestyle?

* Is there any place left on Earth where man is capable of creating his own legacy without being subject to a ruling class above him?

You have the gift of free will.


"I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence." - Malcom X


People are attuning their awareness to their beliefs and they will inevitably be acting and defending what they believe dear in this world.

More and more will be saying it - "Enough is Enough."


Action is soon.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
So the questions are now at hand for a civil and insightful discussion.

* When does it become reasonable to act out against ruling bodies?

Well, in my opinion, being trained in western philosophies, I would say whenever a government is established that was not elected by the people in fair elections.

* If running away from an unwanted rule is out of the question, how long does peaceable protest last before resorting to overthrow of the system?

Sort of a flawed question. Unable physically to leave, or just financial or otherwise? So long as a person has legs, they can leave a place if they want. It may not be easy of course, long walk, might have to cross borders into other lands and deal with their government.

I think from my philosophy, a overthrow of the system should always be contemplated and every 2-4 years, we cast our vote to either keep the system, or vote in a different vision. For all its flaws, the democratic republic is not a bad system

* IF peaceable protest garners no response and does not succeed, and overthrow of a system is out of question, then what options remain left for an individual or individuals who wish to live a free and independent lifestyle?

Adaptation

* Is there any place left on Earth where man is capable of creating his own legacy without being subject to a ruling class above him?

Not really. Some uninhabited areas of the world perhaps, but with society comes rule. This has been the case since men were in caves and unlikely to change

There are some parts of the world however without a functioning government, such as somolia and other parts of Africa...but that is not very rational

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way condoning, or inciting violence. I abhor it.

I think there's a problem that people allow lawmakers to enact laws that say when, where, how, and who can and can't protest. If you are upset about anything, you have to protest in the way the lawmakers tell you. If you don't, you get to feel the wrath of whomever is making the rules of engagement that day. The odds are that the many cameras pointed at you 24/7 are 'non-functional' or the tape was inadvertently erased in the hot spot where the violence occurs. Of course, there are 'laws' making it illegal to film the police in these situations. Public outrage/protest is the basis of civilization. When you let the lawmakers dictate how this outrage is manifested, all is lost.

Again, I do not intend to incite or condone violence in any way shape or form. I just ask that people pay attention to the day-to-day works of the people they vote for. They do not always have the people's best interests at heart.
Nobody should be scared of their government. Unfortunately, this is the norm. Is this by design? Who knows? Don't let your voice go unheard.

reply to post by gwydionblack


It becomes reasonable when the diplomatic solution is no longer an option. When the system can no longer be played to your advantage, or to the people's advantage.

When you've been completely shut out of the political process.

This is no the case.

We are just lazy, and refuse to take part, because it's hard, and it takes effort and determination to overcome and undo what has been created.

We've been running away, running to the ballot boxed every year to elect another schmuck whose only interested in himself, his party and his masters.

A democracy is only as good as it's citizens. We've been really bad citizens. At the very least we've been complacent and blind.

Fran Lobowitz stated it best that you could sum up the last hundred years of culture as:

The Blind Art Collector

~Keeper

My My...in light of recent events...this could open many doors that, for the time, should and will stay shut.

The American Colonists pursued confrontation when taxes became over bearing, when the British masters overstepped percieved boundries and pushed searches and seizures, began to confiscate personal firearms and armories formed for protection from raiding Native Americans and the competing colonials...ie the French and Spanish.

One has to wonder how they would respond to TSA searches, the burdensome taxes now laid upon the populace, and the raids upon Amish dairies...

The South in 1860-61 responded with confrontation when, again, overbearibng taxes and tariffs punished citizens with no more motive than to try and make a profit on the "free" market...domestic and abroad. I'm talking cotton and tobbacco...slavery was an issue, but that is another discussion for another time.

Further, when the Federal Govt tried to quell the growing rebelliobn, they did so requesting help from militias in neighboring states...citizens firing on fellow citizens. That enraged the few southern states still holding out of the fledgling Confederacy.

The common point in the Revolution, in the Civil War, and now...is that the citizenry tried to pursue peaceful, civil, legal, and legislative steps to confront the perceived threat from a growing and overbearing Federal Govt. When those steps failed, violent confrontation was unavoidable.

Unfortunately, when the peaceful pursuits of the citizens failed...the conflict that followed was hinted at and initiated by individual and violent tragedies...

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...that goes for citizens....and overbearing governments.

reply to post by survival


The gift of free will is given to all. However, in most societies there is punishment for enacting free will even in small instances. It seems in the modern word that even free will is monitored under a system of checks and balances to make sure that nobody uses their free will to do what those in power might perceive as wrong or offensive to the others.

Even free will is limited in these trying times, though some refuse to acknowledge it as such.



reply to post by SaturnFX

Well, in my opinion, being trained in western philosophies, I would say whenever a government is established that was not elected by the people in fair elections.

But who is to define a "fair election"? Surely not those in power or else the system is already inherently flawed. For example, I do not find the current election system to be fair in the slightest. Does that hold any merit to the government it elects? None in the slightest. Why should my say hold no weight in the powers I am SUPPOSED to choose in a country where I am supposed to be "free"?

Sort of a flawed question. Unable physically to leave, or just financial or otherwise? So long as a person has legs, they can leave a place if they want. It may not be easy of course, long walk, might have to cross borders into other lands and deal with their government.

Not flawed at all. I have already established that in the modern world the ability to leave unto your own free society is literally impossible. No matter where you go on the planet you are subject to laws and regulations of others who claim power for no better reason than "they say so". Even if you had all the money in the world and you bought an island from a country, you would still be subject to the laws of that country.

Why should I have to "deal" with any government? Why is it that I am no longer allowed to create my own?

I think from my philosophy, a overthrow of the system should always be contemplated and every 2-4 years, we cast our vote to either keep the system, or vote in a different vision. For all its flaws, the democratic republic is not a bad system

But voting in such democratic republics has become flawed. In most modern countries the people merely vote for a low percentage of the officials in power and those officials then have the ability to appoint officials as they see fit with no say of the people. The people who are then within the system via appointment are able to use resources from within to ensure that they remain in their position and only suitable patrons take up the electable positions.

Thus, the modern democracy is a corrupt tangle of webs that is no longer elected by the public. Even if the entire elected body were to be changed to trustworthy, ideal candidates for a better future, the system is so complicated that they would be able to do little to remove the damaged factors that have been added by past elected officials.

You could blame it on the people for the choices of elected representatives, however humans are corrupt and lying species. Even those who seem trustworthy tend to prove to be thieves and liers and there is not way about it in today's systems. In short, the system has defeated itself.

Adaptation

Why should I have to adapt when others do not? Are my standards any less important than the person who enjoys the system they live in?

I do not understand the need for some to adapt to the will of others while the others take advantage of their own free wills.



reply to post by Badgered1


Indeed. Obviously if the rules of protest and insurrection are left in the hands of those within positions of power, they will be restricted to ensure that the governed never to anything to threaten the power structure. Therefore the thought that revolution or overthrow is "illegal" in a society is moot, because no matter what society you are in, such things would be illegal in order to preserve the power of the ruling body.



reply to post by tothetenthpower


I would have to agree with you. People in ruling states with the power of peaceable change are indeed lazy. But that yet raises another question.

How long do you wait for people to stop being lazy?

If a change should be made to a country in order to prevent its collapse or ensure the civil and human rights of the people, do you simply wait for everyone else to join in the peaceable change, which very well may never happen, or do you take matters into your own hands?

In the past it seems the later. With the American Revolution as the prime example, the majority of the people were content to the current conditions and were unwilling to work for change. However it was the minority who decided the path the people should take to further their livelihoods.

Was it right in there action to act without the consent of the majority?

Looking at some cases, I can see where it would not be. However, with the will of the betterment of all the peoples in mind, I believe it should be considered appropriate. What say you on the matter?



reply to post by AlreadyGone


I am trying to steer this away from "current events" as much as possible and instead turn to shine a light on the social aspects and understanding of the situation.

You do make some good points and I must agree with your assessment of history repeating itself.

When those who lead do not care about the people they lead.. Chose years ago to walk away from all of it and acknowledge no leaders as none have the wellbeing of the people in heart/mind.. And yes there are still parts of the world to retreat to and live free from the fools and idiots who think theyre leaders...

reply to post by Expat888


Care to share where the "free" places might be?







Also, it seems that there is a lapse in discussion. I assure you that secret service is not going to march up to your door and arrest you for merely speaking on the subject and discussing the relevance in modern times. At least, it has not yet happened to me and I have been the most outspoken person I know on the issue.

Are there any more opinions on the matter?