Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

When does one rebel against a gov. by force?

Rate this topic


Praxus

Recommended Posts

The basic idea is that the loop would occur ...

I'm sorry, but I really do not see how any of this relates to what you originally claimed, namely: "I have seen a decent enough amount of anecdotal evidence that the human mind works on a logical structure not unlike C++ and that contradictions would have to cause an infinite loop."

Perhaps it is clear to you, but not to me. So, fun or not, I will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How very odd... I can't fathom why you would be so apathetic, but I'm not interested in forcing you to care, so I guess we will leave it at that.

If you knew anything at all about me, which you obviously do not, you would know that apathy about ideas, especially those related to the nature of the mind, is one of the least possible things you could reasonably accuse me of. Why do you accuse me of apathy rather than take me at my word? I simply cannot make sense out of what you had to say. Do you not see the difference between that, and apathy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you accuse me of apathy rather than take me at my word? I simply cannot make sense out of what you had to say. Do you not see the difference between that, and apathy?

Well, you said, "I can't make sense of what you said and I don't care to." Unless you had some reason to claim that the deficiency is mine and that I am some kind of babbling idiot, then yes, you are being apathetic. Unless you can present a third alternative...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you said, "I can't make sense of what you said and I don't care to."

How dare you put false words into my mouth. I do not know what standards you are used to on your own forum, but here we pride ourselves by accurately transcribing quotes, not fabricating words as you have just done. I did not say the words you put in quotes and attribute to me; please learn to separate facts from your feelings. I have reported this indiscretion to the moderators and demand that if you ever quote me again, you do so accurately.

Unless you had some reason to claim that the deficiency is mine and that I am some kind of babbling idiot, then yes, you are being apathetic. Unless you can present a third alternative...

Well, since you ask, I will give you an alternative explanation. Your thoughts were extremely muddled, and when I asked for a clarification they became more muddled still. In addition you noted that your analogy was "very loose at the moment" and that "it isn't meant to be any deeper than that." Combining this with the muddleheaded nature of your ideas, I simply said, I thought rather graciously, that "[m]aybe we should just leave it at that."

But rather than leave things at that, you said "this is fun" and you decided to pursue this further, presenting still more incomprehensible ideas. Again being unable to untangle your thoughts or discern anything sensible in what you said, I told you: "[p]erhaps it is clear to you, but not to me. So, fun or not, I will leave it at that."

In short, what you presented bordered on babble, and I tried to end the "discussion" in as nice a way as possible. My reward for doing so was to be accused by you of several completely unwarranted attitudes and actions, and for you to fabricate into a quote, words that I did not say.

So, bottom line answer to your question: "Unless you had some reason to claim that the deficiency is mine and that I am some kind of babbling idiot, then yes, you are being apathetic," is yes, the deficiency is yours and the continued evidence indicates that you are "some kind of a babbling idiot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're seriously mistaken if you thought I was using quote marks to indicate a direct quote in that case it was a paraphasing and a rather accurate one at that. I thought that, since your words were RIGHT THERE that nobody would be foolish enough to think it was a direct quote.

As for the rest: did you stop to think that I would easily see through your attempt to "be nice" and that you couldn't conceal the insulting implications of your conclusion about me? At least now you're being honest.

As I said, it was a curious notion and it is not meant to represent a consolidated theory. I made the grievous mistake of posting an unfinished thought and actually trying to work it out in a intellectual forum. That is indeed my idea of fun, but if you are not interested in being "in" on the ground floor, then that's your choice. It doesn't make me an idiot.

I will edit my original post to clarify.

Edit: For some reason I cannot edit it. I assure you that it was meant as a paraphrase and not a direct quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're seriously mistaken if you thought I was using quote marks to indicate a direct quote in that case it was a paraphasing and a rather accurate one at that. I thought that, since your words were RIGHT THERE that nobody would be foolish enough to think it was a direct quote.

Your attempt to deny and rationalize away what you did, rather than admit your error, is duly noted. This is exactly what you said:

Well, you said, "I can't make sense of what you said and I don't care to."

If you intended to paraphrase then you should have so indicated. The fact is, you put words in my mouth that I never said, and rather than apologize for what you did, you now make matters worse by attempting to justify your error. This is not just an issue of your muddleheaded thoughts, but now it is one of character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that it was implicit in what I said that I was aware that I did not make myself as clear as I should have. Why else would I go back and edit my post? If you want me to be explicit, I am sorry I did not make myself clear.

Now what about the things you said about me? Do they stand? Am I an idiot or was I just giving you an opportunity to participate in the formation of an amusing analogy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want me to be explicit, I am sorry I did not make myself clear.

The issue is not about what you failed to do ("make myself clear"), but about what you did do (put words in my mouth).

Now what about the things you said about me? Do they stand? Am I an idiot or was I just giving you an opportunity to participate in the formation of an amusing analogy?

Must they be exclusive, and are those my only two alternatives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, really, I never meant to put words in your mouth. I wasn't saying that as an evasion, but as an explanation that I would never do something like that.

Honestly, I am sorry that this has gone so far wrong and that I have snapped at you. I fear that stresses from elsewhere are getting the better of me. I have sat down with others and worked through it now, so I can tell you I will be less caustic in the future.

Must they be exclusive, and are those my only two alternatives?

Of course not. That's what I was saying before: only you know your own mind, so you tell me. You proably just were giving me the space to finish my own thought. You probably meant nothing insulting from it, and you probably only called me an idiot just now because I was practically asking for it. Am I right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, really, I never meant to put words in your mouth. I wasn't saying that as an evasion, but as an explanation that I would never do something like that.

Honestly, I am sorry that this has gone so far wrong and that I have snapped at you. I fear that stresses from elsewhere are getting the better of me. I have sat down with others and worked through it now, so I can tell you I will be less caustic in the future.

Okay. And I am sorry for throwing your own words back at you ("babbling idiot"). I did so out of annoyance and frustration, which is not the best motivation.

Let's put this behind us and start out fresh. (But, in another thread. ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you said, "I can't make sense of what you said and I don't care to." Unless you had some reason to claim that the deficiency is mine and that I am some kind of babbling idiot, then yes, you are being apathetic. Unless you can present a third alternative...

I am glad you two have managed to work this out somewhat amiably, but I would just like to note that your post as written could easily be misinterpreted as a direct attribution, and ask you to either not use quotation marks or include some explanatory phrase indicating that that is what you are doing when you are summarizing your interpretation of someone else's views in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I choose to obey the rule of law and fight the battle through ideas and persuasion. But, one would still be morally justified in using force.

Do I understand you to be saying that you would recommend that people follow the rule of law in the US but that you think they would be morally justified not following the rule of law in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I understand you to be saying that you would recommend that people follow the rule of law in the US but that you think they would be morally justified not following the rule of law in the US?

The context of my remark was in response to the issue of armed rebellion. If things are so bad that you give up on persuasion by ideas, then you go underground and fight with force for your freedom. Otherwise, you obey the rule of law and change the tide through persuasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The time to fight is the time when they try to disarm us. Molon Labe!

It has already come to that in many parts of the US. In DC, where I live, handguns are banned outright and rifle/shotgun permits are very hard to get. (Of course this does not prevent the many shootings that occur here, since criminals by definition do not obey the laws.) The situation in Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. is about the same.

I think the free speech issue is much more central but even that is being rapidly eroded, for example by the "campaign finance" laws. We now have government regulation of political speech, something that is blatantly unconstitutional and a clear violation of individual rights. Yet there does not seem to be much protest about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
According to Objectivism, under what circumstances are violent revolution permissible?  In case you're wondering, I'm not planning to overthrow the government or anything...just something I've wondered about for a while.

When objectively justified rights are systematically not recognised or disrespected, and the alternative is a government which recognises rights. Thus:

1. Not in order to trade slavery for slavery

2. Not when violation of rights is occasional

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When objectively justified rights are systematically not recognised or disrespected, and the alternative is a government which recognises rights. Thus:

    1. Not in order to trade slavery for slavery

    2. Not when violation of rights is occasional

It's somewhat difficult to draw the line exactly when rights violations are "ocassional" and when they are persistent and systematic. Even the rule given by Ayn Rand, which, I believe, is

1. One party rule

2. Censorship

3. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus

is difficult to apply. Must the one party be explicitly one party? The Democrats and the Republicans are identical fundamentally, differing only in the details. As for censorship, we have the Federal Communications Comission (FCC). Only number 3, as far as I know, has not been implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  One party rule

2.  Censorship

3.  Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus

is difficult to apply.  Must the one party be explicitly one party?  The Democrats and the Republicans are identical fundamentally, differing only in the details.  As for censorship, we have the Federal Communications Comission (FCC).  Only number 3, as far as I know, has not been implemented.

The basic question is whether reason can be used as a means of changing the government. While I'm entirely sympathetic to the observation that the Demopublicans are essentially the same, they are not de jure the same and more importantly, the state does not use force to restrict political candidates to these two parties. The fact that we are presented with Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dip as the virtually guaranteed winners of the election is a fact about the electorate, who have been suckered into thinking that they can get something for nothing, if they vote for the right candidate.

Again, while the FCC can restrict what you can say or expose on broadcast media, it has limited jurisdiction (it cannot restrict what you write), so again the state does not have the power to eliminate opposition to its policies. The ability to oppose the government is fundamental to a free society, and we still have that. In contrast, criticism of the state is a capital offense in Iran and North Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the situation is a little worse than DavidOdden suggests. While 3rd parties are not banned outright, there are significant legal barriers to them getting on ballots. The McCain-Feingold Act (aka "campaign finance reform") significantly and directly restricts the freedom of political expression. As for habeus corpus, there have been a number of cases recently of terrorism suspects (including US citizens) being held without bail or access to lawyers and not given speedy trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While 3rd parties are not banned outright, there are significant legal barriers to them getting on ballots. The McCain-Feingold Act (aka "campaign finance reform") significantly and directly restricts the freedom of political expression.

But any restrictions whatsoever on being a candidate for political office constitutes a barrier. Even a filing fee, any minimum number of signatures on a nominating petition, or the requirement that the candidate be a citizen. If you define oppressive fascist regime as any gvernment that does not freely allow anyone to run for public office with zero "restrictions", then all governments are oppressive fascist regimes and there is no difference between the US and North Korea except details of degree. While I don't want to imply that the deck is not stacked, (1) the failure of minority parties to get on the ballot is entirely due to the fact that they do not have sufficient public support, so blame the public and (2) I am proud of the politicos who found such clever ways to work around McCain-Feingold, which is de facto dead as a real law. There is no argument for assassinating politicians just because there are ballot access restrictions, or because 15 year olds can't vote, or whatever. The point is that political change can be effected by rational means and killing your oppressors is not justified in the current context. Of course this may all change, slowly but surely, over the next 200 years, so ask me again in the far future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...