Posted on 10/25/2015 11:00:06 AM PDT by Politicalkiddo
“I’d be careful with the last thang since it’s quite possible your professor is a lefty butt-hole.”
Praise God, no. He’s a Republican and has actually ran for office in Washington state at some point. He brought in a cackling Hillary pen to show my class the other day. Thanks for the suggestions. :)
I am particularly fond of Chapter 4, where Paine writes of the American Constitution and natural born citizens as a requirement to be President.
-PJ
Then consider how things are in a constitutional democracy or representative republic. If you have the right to present your views freely and argue for them, and you are voted down, do you still have the right to revolution? And under what circumstances? You may find that the right to revolution is not considered to be absolute when people do have the right to have their grievances heard and voted on.
P.S. Be sure to cite the immortal words of Jefferson: "Got a revolution. Got to revolution." It's somewhere in the Declaration of Independence, I think, and the quote sure to impress any teacher.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/grotius/
That’s fortunate for you. One of my professors had a big poster of Karl Marx on his wall. He was a professional butt-****.
I asked him once why Marx spent all his time at the library scribbling when his kids needed medicine. He wasn’t amused.
Since revolution usually involves armed conflict, you might try to work this Dutchman Grotius in too.
Good luck!
Interesting summary here:
see 6. Rebellion and Revolution
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/
Thanks! :)
That’s actually the beginning of the argument, a clue to start off for the original poster.
There is great deal indeed that flows from Romans 13.
The treatment by Aquinas for one.
It’s a fascinating subject.
Thanks! I love Paine. I will love into it.
*look
Consider the nature of your question
Pre-Christian philosophy looked at the nature of society, the roles of various classes (particularly Plato) and what the forms were to achieve the most stable and proper society, with everyone performing their roles. Even Aristotle, who might be considered “democratic” because he talked about the “Polity,” still talked about perfection of the ideal state and those few citizens who would rule it.
Christian philosophy was radical in that it asserted every man and woman was created in God’s image, with an independent soul, and logically then, each person was equal, as least in a most philosophical.
The Enlightenment thinkers, particular English ones, combined with the experiences of Protestantism, took this further and developed the idea of “Natural Rights” which God has given to every man. The “right to revolt” as you mention, reached its height with the political philosophy of the American Revolution, who had the decades after the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution to incubate their ideals.
I do not believe there is any philosopher who specifically says “there is no right to revolt” but the next major turn comes with the 19th century materialists who questioned or wanted to redefine a millennia of Christian thought. Nietzche, for example, didn’t talk about the rights of individuals, but rather, the idea of WHO had the right to revolt, or to be in charge (the Ubermensch) and the view that history is not set in the concept of an end in God, but rather, an unending repetition of events or cycles. Marxism and its related thinkers of course took this even further - history is only a record of the physical and material. The right to revolt certainly exists, but for the proletariat as a class, to fulfill the determined path of history. Then came the modern existentialists who basically said - don’t even look for meaning.
In my opinion, philosophy of the 20th and 21st centuries is the period of the rise of materialism, modernism and all forms of skepticism. Its a movement not really towards anything, but a movement away from Christian thought of the previous 1000 years. The ideals of the American Revolution we still have today, came from a very narrow and specific place - the Enlightenment of England. While these have been nurtured and grown under the English and later American Empire, we can not assume they are universally held or believed. We see them faltering even in the United States today.
Your question, therefore should be “Who believes in Natural Rights” and who are those who do not?
Have you given any thought to looking up “revolution” in a book of quotes, finding one that seems to meet your search criteria, and then following up on the citation?
It’s a very basic way of getting the slant that you want from a famous person who had enought juice to get into a book of famous quotes.
Short course
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Yes, I understand that, but the professor has sent you on a real rabbit trail. The proof is in the fact that you are on one now. I say that sympathetically.
The requirement to find someone “who was against the “idea....”, is a task in itself. And, different from finding someone against revolution as a “right”.
Look through “The Radicalism of the American Revolution,” by Gordon S. Wood.
Revolution is a duty.
Not a right.
Quote fidel castro and get an a
Search for “counter-enlightenment” and also “enlightened totalitarianism.”
Read the works of Filmer, de Maistre, Bonald, Cortes, Oliveira, and many others.
In addition to individual proponents of unassailable government authority which you may find, there is an ageless conflict between authority and autonomy, which will constantly find new forms.
To revolt against Government is either:
- To deny the theory upon which the Government’s authority is based, to replace it with another. (Divine right, Socialist equality, Majority rule, Rule of Law, Utilitarian greatest good for the greatest number, A “social contract”, Advancement of the race or Nation in prestige/dominion/wealth, Sheer force of arms, etc).
- To correct a Government which is not behaving in accordance with its stated principles.
- Or simply to seize power for personal gratification and profit.
So many who argue against a right to revolt will do so based on their defense of the principles upon which the Government’s authority is based - ideology.
Others deny a right to revolt simply because it threatens their wealth and privilege - power politics. The ideological arguments and political motivations will naturally mix in the analysis of individuals.
Similarly, there are different theories for the basis of the degree of individual autonomy. God-Given, Inherent, State-delegated, Self-generated, Inherited, what is considered in the best interest of the family/tribe/community/society, bounded by constraints of law or morality, etc. A right to revolt could be predicated on the supposition of a superior basis of individual authority, rather than that of the Government.
Philosophically, there is always a trade-off in ceding authority to a Government. Personalities and situations constantly change, and adjustments must occur. Criteria and methods will vary.
I would also mention the Biblical reference of this eternal conflict - the fall of Lucifer, the proponent of no right to revolt, no free will for individuals.
Revolting against the Government is commonly called treason, so you might also find some impassioned arguments against treason and traitors.
You may easily find some anti-revolutionary, anti-authority concepts from the Koran.
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.