Posted on 10/25/2015 11:00:06 AM PDT by Politicalkiddo
So I am writing a paper for my PoliSci class on the "right of revolution" and I plan to use John Locke's writings as my main supporting evidence. My professor, however, wants me to find a specific someone who was/is against the idea of people having the right to revolution, and I cannot find anyone specific. I keep finding vague answers about monarchs, but no one who has actually spoken/written out against the idea. Any suggestions? :) Thank you!
Do you recognize the following?
“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 . . .”
/johnny
Yes, of course I do. I am asking not for examples of supporters, but for examples of detractors. I already stated that Locke’s writings are the basis of my argument for the natural right of revolution.
Thank you. :)
+1
I contend in that Romans 13 is only applicable when the authorities are doing right, not when doing that which is wrong. If doing right authority is due respect and submission, if wrong changes must be made to correct the source(s) of wrong doing.
No need nor wish for a reply. I merely stated my opinion, as did you.
"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.
"To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.
"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
If you are looking for Locke’s opposite, you may be looking for Thomas Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher from Malmesbury. He became famous when his book, “Leviathan,” created the foundation of the political philosophy from the West.
Hobbes was the champion of absolutism for the sovereign.
Start with the writer(s) of the Declaration of Independence.
Quote:
“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.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Instead they formed a new nation—the United States of America. John Adams was a leader in pushing for independence, which was unanimously approved on July 2. A committee of five had already drafted the formal declaration, to be ready when Congress voted on independence. The term “Declaration of Independence” is not used in the document itself.
Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[3] which Congress would edit to produce the final version.
In January 1776, just as it became clear in the colonies that the king was not inclined to act as a conciliator, Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense was published.[24] Paine, who had only recently arrived in the colonies from England, argued in favor of colonial independence, advocating republicanism as an alternative to monarchy and hereditary rule.[25] Common Sense introduced no new ideas,[26] and probably had little direct effect on Congress’s thinking about independence; its importance was in stimulating public debate on a topic that few had previously dared to openly discuss.[27] Public support for separation from Great Britain steadily increased after the publication of Paine’s enormously popular pamphlet.[28]
While political maneuvering was setting the stage for an official declaration of independence, a document explaining the decision was being written. On June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a “Committee of Five”, consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, to draft a declaration. Because the committee left no minutes, there is some uncertainty about how the drafting process proceeded—accounts written many years later by Jefferson and Adams, although frequently cited, are contradictory and not entirely reliable.
I don’t know how I forgot about Hobbes. He’s the obvious answer.
I think the professor gave a really difficult question.
Even chronologically, as well as from a governing authority, that is a really good answer. King George.
It could be easy to get into the weeds with some individual examples of ideological vs. governing “rights” to revolt or not to revolt.
Try Kant’s view on revolutions. I have not looked at any of these (I did this very quickly), but they might start you on a path. Also, instead of revolution, try the term rebellion in your searches.
Sidney Axinn, “Kant, Authority, and the French Revolution”
L.W. Beck, “Kant and the Right of Rebellion”
Peter Nicholson, “Kant on the Duty Never to Resist the Sovereign”
Hans Reiss, “Kant and the Right of Rebellion”
Thomas Seebohm, “Kant’s Theory of Revolution”
Also, if you can get to a copy of “Kant’s Political Writings” with an introduction by Han Reiss, Cambridge Press 1970, the introduction is excellent in describing Kant’s view.
Here’s an excerpt of Reiss’s intro -
According to Kant, the case against rebellion is unambiguous. The people cannot possess a right to rebel. There can be no power to determine what constitutes the right to rebel. Rebellion would upset the whole system of laws. It would create anarchy and violence. It would also destroy the civil constitution which the idea of the social contract demands. For if a constitution contained an article permitting a people to rebel or to depose a sovereign, a second sovereign would thereby be established. This event would be a contradiction. It would, in fact, require a further, third sovereign to decide between the two, which is absurd. There cannot therefore be in a constitution a clause giving any one a right to resist or to rebel against supreme authority.
And finally, best wishes on your essay.
Cop out, or contribute. That is the question.
You will need the exact citation for an academic paper, but look for the Thomas Jefferson quote about the “Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants” indicating that tyranny might arise that would rquire another revolution.
Surprised you hadn’t heard about that one as it is cited often on conservative websites.
Alexis de Toqueville’s many volumes on the American experiment should produce something as well.
Kant. Now that’s interesting. I studied him briefly in my “Western Philosophy” class, but we never went into his political theories. I will definitely check that out. :) Thank you.
I am using Locke as my supporting evidence. I need a detractor. My class involves the study of Rousseau, Machiavelli, and Locke.
The following would make a nice page or two for your paper.
Show the progression from natural law (ex. Henry VIII, God’s prince with absolute power, or at least that’s how he saw it), to positive law (John Austen, the Mills, father and son: utilitarianism, or the attempt to accomplish “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people,” described by some as `a philosophy fit for swine’), to whatever we have today, Kant’s categorical imperatives, or devolution to Obama’s L’ÉTAT, C’EST MOI ?
I’d be careful with the last thang since it’s quite possible your professor is a lefty butt-hole.
I choose the topic, actually. I’ve always thought of writing a paper on Locke and the right of revolution and the opportunity has finally presented itself to me. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.