When is taking to the streets to overthrow a government acceptable?

[Borderline Divine]

The thread above got me thinking about this. When there is no other format or process that can lead to regime change, why wouldn't, why shouldn't people take to the streets?

Worked in Eastern Europe.
Didn't work in China.
Worked in Iran, wish it hadn't.
Worked in France, probably not the best example.

[byu71]

The thread above got me thinking about this. When there is no other format or process that can lead to regime change, why wouldn't, why shouldn't people take to the streets?

Worked in Eastern Europe.
Didn't work in China.
Worked in Iran, wish it hadn't.
Worked in France, probably not the best example.

If Obama gets elected to a second term and somehow the dems get the house back.

[Borderline Divine]

If Obama gets elected to a second term and somehow the dems get the house back.

Get ready. My man's already setting up the campaign office in Chicago. And nobody can steal an election fair and square like those Chicago boys.

[Jacob]

The thread above got me thinking about this. When there is no other format or process that can lead to regime change, why wouldn't, why shouldn't people take to the streets?

Worked in Eastern Europe.
Didn't work in China.
Worked in Iran, wish it hadn't.
Worked in France, probably not the best example.

It worked in Iran, except for when it didn't--last year.

I like this argument:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[NorthwestUteFan]

It worked in Iran, except for when it didn't--last year.

I like this argument:

It is terribly tragic that we didn't support the Iranians last year (at least verbally). It may have been the best example of a peaceful regime change that region will likely see. They may not get a chance to build their own Jeffersonian republic which respects the rights of all persons, including those of 19 year old girls who run away from arranged marriages (and get stoned to death for it).

I have worked with, gone to school with, and lived near many Iranians over the years. Even Steve Sarkisian's father was from Iran, but escaped prior to the revolution (ethnic Armenian, Orthodox Christian). The vast majority of them are strong supporters of America, based on the freedoms we have. Their families back in Iran want the same thing for their country.

I was thinking about starting a thread like this. It is ironic the majority of the media in this country who will embrace Egyptians protesting government oppresion in the streets of Cairo, will in the next breath curse the Tea Party protesters in America who want to halt the amount of government intrusion into their lives.

[Goatnapper'96]

The thread above got me thinking about this. When there is no other format or process that can lead to regime change, why wouldn't, why shouldn't people take to the streets?

Worked in Eastern Europe.
Didn't work in China.
Worked in Iran, wish it hadn't.
Worked in France, probably not the best example.

I was ready to...until "they" pulled the plug on their plans to tax the ladies who get a lil help in the ta-ta region!

[wuapinmon]

If Obama gets elected to a second term and somehow the dems get the house back.

Dammit, now we're all on some NSA watch list because you're being sarcastic.

[byu71]

Dammit, now we're all on some NSA watch list because you're being sarcastic.

I have made enough, "I don't care for" posts about Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh to have them totally confused.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I was ready to...until "they" pulled the plug on their plans to tax the ladies who get a lil help in the ta-ta region!

No kidding. That is simply unacceptable in a modern, enlightened society! Why are the poor, suffering husbands out there unable to buy a modicum of silione with their flex-spending accounts? It is all about keeping the man 'down'.

[pellegrino]

I watched The Weather Underground last night. It's a documentary of a radical group that broke off from the SDS in 1969 and went on to commit acts of terror. They seriously thought that they were really close to achieving complete turmoil and overthrowing the American government (some of them still think this). Clearly they weren't and they failed. You might even say they failed miserably .

Anyways, it got me thinking about revolutions, why some succeeded and others failed miserably, and I've come to an initial judgment about what makes a revolution successful, or at least an important factor. Here it is:

Successful revolutions are led and backed by those who have the capital and the greed motive to win.

I'm curious what yall think about that.

I know that doesn't answer the question of the original post, I don't know that I can find an answer to that. I suppose the principled answer is the repeated, repressive, and violent violation of your rights and the rights of your fellow men, but even then there are plenty of reasons, depending on the circumstances for people to avoid conflict, even if that compromises their own principles.

[creekster]

I watched The Weather Underground last night. It's a documentary of a radical group that broke off from the SDS in 1969 and went on to commit acts of terror. They seriously thought that they were really close to achieving complete turmoil and overthrowing the American government (some of them still think this). Clearly they weren't and they failed. You might even say they failed miserably .

Anyways, it got me thinking about revolutions, why some succeeded and others failed miserably, and I've come to an initial judgment about what makes a revolution successful, or at least an important factor. Here it is:

Successful revolutions are led and backed by those who have the capital and the greed motive to win.

I'm curious what yall think about that.

I know that doesn't answer the question of the original post, I don't know that I can find an answer to that. I suppose the principled answer is the repeated, repressive, and violent violation of your rights and the rights of your fellow men, but even then there are plenty of reasons, depending on the circumstances for people to avoid conflict, even if that compromises their own principles.

Interesting. Care to offer a few examples? Did the Blosheviks have capital? What about Mao? I would be interested in hearign how you reached this conlcusion. The weathermen were simply misguided idealists.

[creekster]

I think it is justified when they do it. IOW, if the right of the government exists by the will of the people once the people collectively assert their will against the government, then the government has no right. Thus, by definition, whenever people do rise up, it is the correct time.

[BigPiney]

I watched The Weather Underground last night. It's a documentary of a radical group that broke off from the SDS in 1969 and went on to commit acts of terror. They seriously thought that they were really close to achieving complete turmoil and overthrowing the American government (some of them still think this). Clearly they weren't and they failed. You might even say they failed miserably .

Anyways, it got me thinking about revolutions, why some succeeded and others failed miserably, and I've come to an initial judgment about what makes a revolution successful, or at least an important factor. Here it is:

Successful revolutions are led and backed by those who have the capital and the greed motive to win.

I'm curious what yall think about that.

I know that doesn't answer the question of the original post, I don't know that I can find an answer to that. I suppose the principled answer is the repeated, repressive, and violent violation of your rights and the rights of your fellow men, but even then there are plenty of reasons, depending on the circumstances for people to avoid conflict, even if that compromises their own principles.

I really don't know about much about this, but I have a friend that is currently writing a dissertation on Revolutions. I will be more than happy to pass it along if he ever defends.

[Solon]

I think it is justified when they do it. IOW, if the right of the government exists by the will of the people once the people collectively assert their will against the government, then the government has no right. Thus, by definition, whenever people do rise up, it is the correct time.

I think creekster hits upon a key point in the theory of it all - from where does political power stem? The consent of the governed? The divine right of kings? etc. Obviously, dozens of heavyweights have weighed in on this.

[pellegrino]

I really don't know about much about this, but I have a friend that is currently writing a dissertation on Revolutions. I will be more than happy to pass it along if he ever defends.

just ask him if my hypothesis holds water.