If members of some group are entitled to declare that they are oppressed and in justifiable revolution against their oppressors just because they feel like it, others are free to argue that from their point of view, members of the first group aren't oppressed and aren't entitled to rebel and may even be oppressors themselves -- and then where are we?
No. In disputes between people or peoples we can't just discard objective facts and values and argue that whatever one person or group thinks entitles them to whatever they want. Sure, if you live on a desert island you can do as you want, and we have a wide sphere of individual liberty, but if you're part of an ongoing partnership, you can't simply take everything that's not nailed down and skip out on your partners just because you happen to feel like it.
You mean the position taken by King George III? When we succeeded in winning our independence, we changed the Paradigm.
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.
"Consent of the Governed" pretty much means "Whatever they damned well please." Governing against the consent of the people is tyranny. It doesn't matter if the people want something foolish, it is their choice to make. "Big Brother" may have their best interests at heart, but if we accept the premise that others should be ruled against their will, then how can we bitch about slavery?
You should read this book. Early on it says that slavery is necessary because otherwise these people will sit on their @$$e$ and do nothing all day long. It presumes to dictate what is best for people who would prefer to sit on their asses rather than accomplish anything. I.E. Forced Work.