How Far Would the Government Have to go Before you'd Consider it Illegitimate?

[Tony]

How much of your rights would the government and politicians have to usurp before you would revolt?

[Mr Manifesto]

Tricky question. There are a few laws I don't agree with in Australia. I just don't pay any attention to them. If you aren't hurting anyone, there shouldn't be a law against it.

The last straw, to me, would be if people were being rounded up and executed. In fact, I would have liked to have been at the Woomera detention centre protests, but I wasn't able to get there. Basically, if it looked like there was going to be a repeat of the Holocaust (people being made to visibly identify themselves as belonging to a specific group, being made to live in a certain area, having to forfeit rights and property), I'd have to break out the bomb recipies.

I guess as well, though, I'd want to know that others would be fighting alongside me. I simply don't have the intestinal fortitude to take on a government by myself. So one answer could be, "as much as anyone else would tolerate".

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
If you aren't hurting anyone, there shouldn't be a law against it.


Hmmm, if indeed you do feel that way. How come you and I frequently find ourselves in disagreement?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Hmmm, if indeed you do feel that way. How come you and I frequently find ourselves in disagreement?

Politics. And anyway, I agree with something that just about everyone says on this forum. If American didn't talk crap all the time, I imagine there'd be something I'd agree with him about.

[reprise]

What about a return to the practise of internment, Manifesto? I can't see Australia ever returning to such a policy, but it would certainly make me consider revolution. Conscription is another policy which - if reinstituted - I suspect would see myself and many of my fellow Australians simply ignoring the the law, with force if necessary.

I guess social laws are the ones where I see Australian voters as most likely to actively defy the government. If, by some weird twist of fate, a state or federal government tried to introduce laws similar to those being proposed in Indonesia (laws which regulate common sexual behaviour and under which long prison sentences can be imposed for breaches), I can't see the government proposing such changes lasting long enough for them to become law.

[CapelDodger]

I expect we've all heard the thing about the frog: drop a frog into boiling water and it'll leap out, put it in a pan of warm water and heat the water and it'll sit there until it boils to death. (This may be apocryphal, and I really don't want anyone posting that they've repeated the experiment.) There's another saying, which I approximate and is probably better in the original German, "When they came for the Trade Unionists I said nothing, when they came for the Democrats I said nothing, when they came for the Jews I said nothing, when they came for me there was nobody left to say anything". In reality the absence of the "tipping point" means no answer thought of in a comfortable present can be that meaningful.

From Mr Manifesto:
The last straw, to me, would be if people were being rounded up and executed
Well, considering the execution rate of the US and the proportion of the US population in prison, would you be availing yourself of their lax gun-control to start active resistance? I joke, but ...

[DanishDynamite]

CapelDodger:There's another saying, which I approximate and is probably better in the original German, "When they came for the Trade Unionists I said nothing, when they came for the Democrats I said nothing, when they came for the Jews I said nothing, when they came for me there was nobody left to say anything". I believe this is the actual quote:

"When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was not a communist;

When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;

When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;

When they came for me, there was no one left to protest."

Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
CapelDodger:I believe this is the actual quote:

"When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was not a communist;

When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;

When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;

When they came for me, there was no one left to protest."

Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)

Ya know, I’ve heard something very similar to that, but I cant remember it now. But someone had re-written the above quote to relate to constitutional rights.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Tony
How much of your rights would the government and politicians have to usurp before you would revolt?

Its never just "the government and politicians". There is always a major interest group - political party, social class, religion or whatever supporting "them" and amongst those supporters will be some of your friends, neighbours and aquaintances. Unless you are a member of a similar and coordinated interest group this makes it very difficult to decide when to revolt and of course who to revolt against.

Usually the serious abusers of power have a sound appreciation of just how far and how fast they can go. Luckily genuinely malign politicians with an all consuming will for power, and the skills to obtain it, are fairly rare. That's probably the main reason that representative democracies stay in existence.

[Cleopatra]

Nice thread Tony. It proves that you are thinking over the discussions we make, I will try harder to watch my mouth when addressing to you from now on.

I agree with Nikk whose absence from the forums was noticed. Politicians are smart enough in order to abstain from the phase 1 of the plan.

First of all we need an enemy, let's say the left-handed people.

Articles in newspapers of big circulation and reports from institutions of "established authority" will start appearing : " The role of the left-handed people in History" or more subtle ones : " Are people justified when they complain about the methods of the left-handed ?"

Of course, none specifies who are the people and which are the methods but it makes you start wondering.

After we name the enemy and we place him in the Historical perspective ( this is of great importance if we want our plan to succeed) we start describing how the enemy takes advantage of our liberties and constitution to commit its crimes against society.

Then the big question is aroused: " How will we protect our future? Let's limit our freedoms in order to marginalize the enemy" and this is the moment that the politicians come on stage.

But I'd like to explore the issue strictly legally speaking just for the joy of the argument. What can be considered as a major constitutional violation?

Of course, we cannot talk about major and minor violations of constitutional rights but what would make me consider a government illegal and would make me take the guns ( since this is what Tony asks) are two things:

1. The postponement of elections for any reason; none knows better than the people.

2. Deliberate delays in the procedure of Justice or abolition of the public character of the trials.

[RPG Advocate]

Actually, Cleopatra, it's already happening, to a degree in America. Let's repost what you said with a few words substituted:

First of all we need an enemy, let's say arabs. Articles in newspapers of big circulation and reports from institutions of "established authority: will start appearing : " The role of the arab in History" or more subtle ones : " Are people justified when they complain about the methods of the arab ?"

Of course, none specifies who are the people and which are the methods but it makes you start wondering.

After we name the enemy and we place him in the Historical perspective ( this is of great importance if we want our plan to succeed) we start describing how arabs take advantage of our liberties and constitution to commit its crimes against society.

The the big question is aroused: " How will we protect our future? Let's limit our freedoms in order to marginalize the arabs by painting them all as terrorists" and this is the moment that the politicians come on stage.

But I'd like to expore the issue strictly legally speaking just for the joy of the argument. What can be considered as a major constitutional violation?

Of course, we cannot talk about major and minor violations of constitutional rights but what would make me consider a government illegal and would make me take the guns ( since this is what Tony asks) are two things:

1. The postponement of elections for any reason; none knows better than the people.

2. Deliberate delays in the procedure of Justice or abolition of the public character of the trials, like the folks at Camp X-Ray

I would add to the above that you need an excuse. For Bush it was September 11th. For Hitler it was Germany's failing economy.

As you can see, the U.S. has already attempted to marginalize the arab. They basically seized on the very real tragedy of September 11th and have villifed a whole class of people for the actions of a single terrorist network. Mr. Ashcroft has seen fit to require "special registration" of certain arab immigrants (http://www.bluetriangle.org/id83.htm) for "national security" reasons, even with no direct evidence of individual involvement in any illegal activities. Does that remind you of a certain other registration program (http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DOCPER5.HTM) ?

The problem with asking oneself "Is something like that legally sufficient to declare a breach of constitutional law?" is that the law isn't a fixed entity. It's always being interpreted differently. That's why we have a bicameral legislature, judicial review, and an extensive appellate court system. I would submit that if a lot of people got to the point where they thought that the government was ignoring the constitution to the point of stimulating revolt, you would hear about it (and from more than just nutty anti-government militias!). That's rather fitting for a democracy, don't you think?

That said, there is one other thing that should be said, and that is that in a modern first-world society, the dissatisfaction level for a revolt to succeed would have to be feverish. The difference in power between a citizen and the army is much larger than it was 200 years ago. Even in Iraq, whose army is pathetic compared to the Americans, were able to keep the citizens subdued, despite an apparent undertone of resentment.

So, in summary, for me to take part in a revolt, the breach of constitutional law would have to be grave indeed, and I would have to be supported by an overwhelming majority of the population. Furthermore, I would have to have some sort of assurance that the army could be reasonable overcome.

[Cleopatra]

Excellent post RPG Advocate!

In fact I didn't want to mention it myself but I think that it was quite obvious that the left-handed people weren't those that I was having in mind in my post.

I avoided to mention the "Arab Terrorists" because I didn't want the thread to be derailed by the reactions such a post would cause, I hope we won't derail it now because the topic is very interesting.

I agree with you that it's almost impossible for a group of people to face an organized Army but don't overlook the fact that many times in revolts army officiers have denied to participate in operations against citizens.

I insist to ask for legitimate and peaceful resistence of the people to the abuse of constitutional rights.

I have been wondering. Who could effectively speak on behalf of the Arabs in the States. Who could protect them?

Yes, you read my mind: The Jewish Diaspora of the States has the obligation and the moral authority to speak for those people and to fight against any abuse of human rights and constitutional freedoms.

Am I daydreaming? Well, these are my dreams, I have the right to dream.

Guns will always be an ineffective way to protect Personal Freedoms because the violence and blood work in circle in History and they turn you back to the point zero. A quick review of the History of Revolutions will persuade you about that.

It's the solidarity among minorities that can play a significant role in the protection of Freedoms in the future.

I am not pessimist. I believe that we learn, it's just that we learn very slowly and we have to experience a lot of cruelty before proceeding to the next step.

[BillyTK]

Conducting an illegal war on another country would just about do it...

[Chaos]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
That said, there is one other thing that should be said, and that is that in a modern first-world society, the dissatisfaction level for a revolt to succeed would have to be feverish. The difference in power between a citizen and the army is much larger than it was 200 years ago. Even in Iraq, whose army is pathetic compared to the Americans, were able to keep the citizens subdued, despite an apparent undertone of resentment.

So, in summary, for me to take part in a revolt, the breach of constitutional law would have to be grave indeed, and I would have to be supported by an overwhelming majority of the population. Furthermore, I would have to have some sort of assurance that the army could be reasonable overcome.

I feel I have to add something to that.

Around 1989/1990 there have been several uprisings, if you can call them that, throughout Eastern Europe. None of them really saw the people having to defeat the army. And these were not democracies, but dictatorships, which should be somewhat more difficult to overcome.
But I agree that anything that could start a successful uprising would have to be something that seriously affected most or all of the population - like the economic difficulties and the rising awareness of Western political liberty and standard of living that ultimately undid the Eastern European regimes.
As sad as it is, I think the "salami tactics" (defeating the enemy one slice at a time) mentioned in the Niemöller quote are very effective in destroying opposition without starting an uprising.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony
How much of your rights would the government and politicians have to usurp before you would revolt?

The biggest problem I have with this Freemen/Posse Comiatus/Republic of Texas loaded question is that we can overthrow our government every two years.

What about the bureaucracy you say? Have the political will to elect a Congress that will eliminate an inefficient or "tyrranical" governmental agency and replace it with a more "rights friendly" one. Can't get an elected majority in Congress you say? Tough s***, you need to work harder getting your message out about why other people should join you.

As an aside, I always get the creeps from people who seem a little too eager to take up arms against our freely elected government...