Gov't submission vs rebellion

[Labyrinth]

There was a book written about pretty much that, called Little Brother by Cory Doctorow. Fascinating ideas and such.

For me? I'd rebel. Live on my feet with a fist in the air kind of thing.

 

[silentsentinel]

I'm a pragmatist, so I'd wait for someone else to rebel, then join them if they gained power.

 

[beddo]

Let's say for the sake of argument that your government, regardless of where you live (most places) delivers and ultimatum to the people. Submit to a predetermined set of rules with some sacrificed freedoms, or be considered a threat to the country. A country where all money, communication, and power is monitored, but you're still free to do what you want, mostly. Think the PATRIOT act on crack, a country run on the fringe of martial law.

Would you be willing to live by this, or would you be one of the people in the street throwing molotovs?

Firstly, the Government answer to us, not the other way around. If this statement becomes false then they are no longer a democratic government, they are a tyrant.

Of course, it depends what freedoms they restrict. Do I agree with them, are they small sacrifices with a reasonably good outcome?

The law is mostly intended to restrict harm against people and/or groups and the justice system is there to punish and rehabilitate those who commit crimes. A lot of the law also decides the ownership of property. The idea is that this is all done with due process, a system where all cases are treated equally so that the system is consistent and can stand up to scrutiny.

Now if they government were to crack down or be in a state of near Martial Law without sufficient reasons such as; war, disease or other serious threats to the population then they would have broken the principles they were founded on and entrusted to uphold. So the question is, what is the point in that government? What do they want and more importantly why do they want it?

Would you be willing to live by this, or would you be one of the people in the street throwing molotovs?

You have ignored one of the most effective forms of resistance; non-violent protest. It is a stance, an ideal that has no word for itself, just the opposite of violence.

Protesting with violence is an indication to the public that the government policy is right; that the people against it are dangerous and a threat to society. However, if people see civilians who are doing nothing bad at all, being beaten and oppressed by the government then the government are shown in their true light, as oppressors.

So to answer your question, I would protest quietly, I would employ simple legal methods and loop holes to head the government off where possible. I would use non-violent protest because it is the only good and decent thing to do.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I'd probably still be sitting at home talking with you people, because that opening blurb, save -maybe- the bit about martial law, describes every civilization on the planet, not just the one in Mirror's Edge.

Ben Franklin once said, "Those who trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both." Ironically, society does a pretty good job of proving him wrong here, something people (like Chibz there) love to conveniently ignore and instead let his name be all the proof they need.

I can't take my car and plow through a crowd of pedestrians (let alone just to see if they fall like bowling pins) without getting law enforcement on my bumper. I give up this liberty, and in return, I receive the security of not being in that crowd of pedestrians when YOU do it. Show me someone who believes this to be a bad trade-off, and I'll show you someone who's probably already cornered the tinfoil market.

I forget where this comes from: "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Which rights we give up for the sake a healthy society and which we give up for security are two different things. They overlap, but NOT completely.

And I'd just do what I do now, but a lot more of it: Piracy, freedom of the high seas applied to my life. Quietly doing whatever the hell I want and it's their job to catch me. But I'm really really quiet and they haven't caught me yet (mostly) so good luck to them.

 

[li-ion]

If my country would turn into a tyranny I would rebel. Organize a movement against the oppression. Go underground or abroad if necessary. But I wouldn't resort to violence, unless there is no other way.

 

[Koeryn]

Let's say for the sake of argument that your government, regardless of where you live (most places) delivers and ultimatum to the people. Submit to a predetermined set of rules with some sacrificed freedoms, or be considered a threat to the country. A country where all money, communication, and power is monitored, but you're still free to do what you want, mostly. Think the PATRIOT act on crack, a country run on the fringe of martial law.

Would you be willing to live by this, or would you be one of the people in the street throwing molotovs?

Firstly, the Government answer to us, not the other way around. If this statement becomes false then they are no longer a democratic government, they are a tyrant.

Of course, it depends what freedoms they restrict. Do I agree with them, are they small sacrifices with a reasonably good outcome?

The law is mostly intended to restrict harm against people and/or groups and the justice system is there to punish and rehabilitate those who commit crimes. A lot of the law also decides the ownership of property. The idea is that this is all done with due process, a system where all cases are treated equally so that the system is consistent and can stand up to scrutiny.

Now if they government were to crack down or be in a state of near Martial Law without sufficient reasons such as; war, disease or other serious threats to the population then they would have broken the principles they were founded on and entrusted to uphold. So the question is, what is the point in that government? What do they want and more importantly why do they want it?

Would you be willing to live by this, or would you be one of the people in the street throwing molotovs?

You have ignored one of the most effective forms of resistance; non-violent protest. It is a stance, an ideal that has no word for itself, just the opposite of violence.

Protesting with violence is an indication to the public that the government policy is right; that the people against it are dangerous and a threat to society. However, if people see civilians who are doing nothing bad at all, being beaten and oppressed by the government then the government are shown in their true light, as oppressors.

So to answer your question, I would protest quietly, I would employ simple legal methods and loop holes to head the government off where possible. I would use non-violent protest because it is the only good and decent thing to do.

I believe this is the /Thread point.

There's just one issue however, and this mostly holds true with the population of the United States. They've become so... used to the governemnt slowly taking away their rights, they would of COURSE go with it. It'll protect them form Terrorists. If you take the guns away, it'll protect them from themselves. Anyone else see what they did to the second Amendment? Oh, not directly, they'd have too much opposition. No, they just banned the resale of spent military grade NATO shell casings. Now, before these would be sold to civilian arms companies who would re-load them, re-brand them and resell them to the public. Now the brass is shredded.

Why take away the right to own guns when you can just make the cost of owning them, and the cost of ammo prohibitive?

There will be no sudden change. They'll take it slowly, bit by bit, loop hole by loop hole. They've been doing it for years, and they'll keep doing it, because the public doesn't know or care.

Don't you just Love the government?

 

[SqueeFactor]

just... an idea man. think of it what you will, i didn't put it up here for harvard law grads to ponder and talk about. just... let it go.

 

[Marv21]

Rebel easy, I would work underground hard to track etc.

Kill those who would be in the press, and make an example of them, and retreat to a disclosed location....thats how the Joker did it and thats how it would work.

 

[Space Spoons]

I'd have to know the specifics of this "martial law." I'm of the opinion that mankind would destroy itself if there weren't at least some rules set in place to maintain order.

In the event we're talking about a Nineteen Eighty-Four situation, I would rebel against the system in the only way that's proven to stimulate long term change; non-violent protest. It wouldn't be easy, but people have proven before that they won't just sit around and accept it if their situation is unjust. All they need is that catalyst to show them.

 

[CapnGod]

I know we just did this post. Seriously, two days ago at most.

And people would just, you know, take it. That's what we do. Sorry. Hell, outside of the US, how many people own a gun? How many here in the US own a gun? How much ammunition do you have? How about defense?

The thought of revolution is quite romantic while sitting cozy behind our computers, and hopefully we would, but I have little faith in the majority of people to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

 

[CapnGod]

I'd have to know the specifics of this "martial law." I'm of the opinion that mankind would destroy itself if there weren't at least some rules set in place to maintain order.

In the event we're talking about a Nineteen Eighty-Four situation, I would rebel against the system in the only way that's proven to stimulate long term change; non-violent protest. It wouldn't be easy, but people have proven before that they won't just sit around and accept it if their situation is unjust. All they need is that catalyst to show them.

Only way? No, that little New World scrape with Great Britain in the late 18th century didn't change the world.

 

[bodyklok]

This doesn't really apply to me because I'd be the one issuing the ultimatum.

 

[Space Spoons]

I'd have to know the specifics of this "martial law." I'm of the opinion that mankind would destroy itself if there weren't at least some rules set in place to maintain order.

In the event we're talking about a Nineteen Eighty-Four situation, I would rebel against the system in the only way that's proven to stimulate long term change; non-violent protest. It wouldn't be easy, but people have proven before that they won't just sit around and accept it if their situation is unjust. All they need is that catalyst to show them.

Only way? No, that little New World scrape with Great Britain in the late 18th century didn't change the world.

That, sir or ma'am, was revolution, and it's not something that can be applied to every situation, especially not the delicate issue of human rights in the modern age.

 

[CapnGod]

I'd have to know the specifics of this "martial law." I'm of the opinion that mankind would destroy itself if there weren't at least some rules set in place to maintain order.

In the event we're talking about a Nineteen Eighty-Four situation, I would rebel against the system in the only way that's proven to stimulate long term change; non-violent protest. It wouldn't be easy, but people have proven before that they won't just sit around and accept it if their situation is unjust. All they need is that catalyst to show them.

Only way? No, that little New World scrape with Great Britain in the late 18th century didn't change the world.

That, sir or ma'am, was revolution, and it's not something that can be applied to every situation, especially not the delicate issue of human rights in the modern age.

I'm sorry, I've highlighted exactly why I pointed out that example. The validity of your statement hinges on one not being able to find any other means for long term change. Since I've found another example (and all it takes is one), your argument is invalid and therefore unsound. Now, you could modify your statement to correct that.

Also, for better or worse, violence has been a much better way to stimulate long term change. The Russian Revolution, the American Revolution, the French Revolution... I'm sensing something of a pattern here.

 

[Space Spoons]

I'd have to know the specifics of this "martial law." I'm of the opinion that mankind would destroy itself if there weren't at least some rules set in place to maintain order.

In the event we're talking about a Nineteen Eighty-Four situation, I would rebel against the system in the only way that's proven to stimulate long term change; non-violent protest. It wouldn't be easy, but people have proven before that they won't just sit around and accept it if their situation is unjust. All they need is that catalyst to show them.

Only way? No, that little New World scrape with Great Britain in the late 18th century didn't change the world.

That, sir or ma'am, was revolution, and it's not something that can be applied to every situation, especially not the delicate issue of human rights in the modern age.

I'm sorry, I've highlighted exactly why I pointed out that example. The validity of your statement hinges on one not being able to find any other means for long term change. Since I've found another example (and all it takes is one), your argument is invalid and therefore unsound. Now, you could modify your statement to correct that.

I guess I should have said the only modern way, because a revolution in that sense of the term simply would not work in this day and age.

Maybe it's not the only method that's ever worked, ever, but it's the only one that would work in 2009's America. The statement stands.

 

[CapnGod]

I'd have to know the specifics of this "martial law." I'm of the opinion that mankind would destroy itself if there weren't at least some rules set in place to maintain order.

In the event we're talking about a Nineteen Eighty-Four situation, I would rebel against the system in the only way that's proven to stimulate long term change; non-violent protest. It wouldn't be easy, but people have proven before that they won't just sit around and accept it if their situation is unjust. All they need is that catalyst to show them.

Only way? No, that little New World scrape with Great Britain in the late 18th century didn't change the world.

That, sir or ma'am, was revolution, and it's not something that can be applied to every situation, especially not the delicate issue of human rights in the modern age.

I'm sorry, I've highlighted exactly why I pointed out that example. The validity of your statement hinges on one not being able to find any other means for long term change. Since I've found another example (and all it takes is one), your argument is invalid and therefore unsound. Now, you could modify your statement to correct that.

I guess I should have said the only modern way, because a revolution in that sense of the term simply would not work in this day and age.

Maybe it's not the only method that's ever worked, ever, but it's the only one that would work in 2009's America. The statement stands.

See, you must strive to be concise. Precision is good. Your new statement might stand, but your old one definitely did not. Since you're what, almost 18, I'm guessing you're still in high school. When you get out, be sure to take some logic in college. Informal logic would help you a lot, and formal would help you to back up your informal logic (as you can actually see proofs of fallacies, which is pretty cool).

Also, the only modern way? Well, I realize you were but a mewling infant, but I remember watching tanks roll into Moscow in 1991. You think that non-violent protest is the only thing that would work in this country today? It's the only thing likely to happen in America today, but if the will of the people was to water that tree of liberty again (I know, I already said it earlier, but it's still relevant here, so lay off) with the blood of tyrants and patriots, violence would spur some change. For better or worse, violence does speak.

Scale matters, perhaps, but violence has a particular voice that's hard to ignore.

 

[Vandalar]

I think its time to put on my smiley-face pin and start launching smoke grenades and the people in the street.

Or, better yet, pull on the old cloth mask and start dropping people down elevator shafts

Oh, the options...

 

[Space Spoons]

I'd have to know the specifics of this "martial law." I'm of the opinion that mankind would destroy itself if there weren't at least some rules set in place to maintain order.

In the event we're talking about a Nineteen Eighty-Four situation, I would rebel against the system in the only way that's proven to stimulate long term change; non-violent protest. It wouldn't be easy, but people have proven before that they won't just sit around and accept it if their situation is unjust. All they need is that catalyst to show them.

Only way? No, that little New World scrape with Great Britain in the late 18th century didn't change the world.

That, sir or ma'am, was revolution, and it's not something that can be applied to every situation, especially not the delicate issue of human rights in the modern age.

I'm sorry, I've highlighted exactly why I pointed out that example. The validity of your statement hinges on one not being able to find any other means for long term change. Since I've found another example (and all it takes is one), your argument is invalid and therefore unsound. Now, you could modify your statement to correct that.

I guess I should have said the only modern way, because a revolution in that sense of the term simply would not work in this day and age.

Maybe it's not the only method that's ever worked, ever, but it's the only one that would work in 2009's America. The statement stands.

See, you must strive to be concise. Precision is good. Your new statement might stand, but your old one definitely did not. Since you're what, almost 18, I'm guessing you're still in high school. When you get out, be sure to take some logic in college. Informal logic would help you a lot, and formal would help you to back up your informal logic (as you can actually see proofs of fallacies, which is pretty cool).

Also, the only modern way? Well, I realize you were but a mewling infant, but I remember watching tanks roll into Moscow in 1991. You think that non-violent protest is the only thing that would work in this country today? It's the only thing likely to happen in America today, but if the will of the people was to water that tree of liberty again (I know, I already said it earlier, but it's still relevant here, so lay off) with the blood of tyrants and patriots, violence would spur some change. For better or worse, violence does speak.

Scale matters, perhaps, but violence has a particular voice that's hard to ignore.

I'm not saying violence would have no effect whatsoever. If the citizens of the United States resolved to rebel against the government in the form of a traditional revolution (take up arms, march on Washington and take down anyone who gets in the way), it could very well have the desired effect if it were to succeed. That's just it, though. It wouldn't.

For one thing, there's the issue of numbers. As bad as it might be to live under an oppressive government, there's no way everyone in the country would be willing to put their lives on the line in knock-down, drag-out fight against a government that's better equipped, better prepared and able to hold out indefinitely. Even if you were able to get a sizable rebel force together, it couldn't hope to outnumber the US Army.

That brings me to my next point; training. This is not the 1770's. Knowing the basics of combat is no longer considered a necessity, since the world just isn't as dangerous as it was back then. Granted, it doesn't take a great deal of know how to pull a trigger, but the ability to shoot accurately, and most importantly, the force of will to take a life, are different issues altogether. These are things the soldiers of the US Army have in spades, and for good reasons. If the US were a totalitarian government, the army would have to be formed up of only the most loyal, skilled citizens of the US, exacerbating the problem.

Given these two facts, a modern revolution in a police state USA could have only one of three outcomes;

1. Destructive civil war between rebels and loyalists.

2. Disastrous defeat of the rebels, resulting in massive loss of life and a substantial drop in the standard of living due to the costs of maintaining a war.

3. Rebel surrender, resulting in imprisonment/execution for rebel leaders, and the loss of even more basic freedoms for the rest of the USA as a precautionary measure against further uprisings.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Martyrdom for freedom