Is it unamerican to revolt against the United States Government?

[R. Shackleferd]

I have a tendency to think not. If anything I think it's very American to revolt against the State so long as the revolt aims to create an independent state that is modeled after our articles of confederation and our bill of rights.

What about you?

 

[spud_meister]

I think Americans are already revolting :2razz:

but it is Unamerican to revolt against the US government, if it was the British government, you'd be fine :mrgreen:

 

[PeteEU]

From what I see from over here.. it is only un-American to revolt/complain against the US government when the Republican's are in the White House. Demonstrators during Bush were "un-American", "terrorist lovers" and god know what, but now they are hero's and "real American's".

 

[Goshin]

The country was founded by revolutionaries who revolted against their "rightful" king, and did so with little or no legal foundation.

It would be a smidge hypocritical to denigrate modern day revolutionaries given that we were founded on revolution.

Having said that, a lot of it would depend on motivations and goals. Stormfront revolt intending to establish an Aryan State? Uh, no. Secessionists who want their State to be its own nation? Perhaps... certainly the US government has supported some former Russian-Federation states seeking independence, so it would be hypocritical to deny it to a US State.

 

[goldcatt]

I have a tendency to think not. If anything I think it's very American to revolt against the State so long as the revolt aims to create an independent state that is modeled after our articles of confederation and our bill of rights.

What about you?

Articles of Confederation? You're more than 220 years late on that one. And the Articles of Confederation had nothing remotely similar to our Bill of Rights attached.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

So it depends on motive. I agree.

How about this: Revolting against the Federal Government to restore our bill of rights and to enforce our constitution. Or;
How about this: Revolting against the Federal Government to put in it's place a new Federal Government and a Constitution that does more to limit congress and the executive branch, makes more rules for congressional proceedings, and says that the collection of revenue can't be done through extortion, and other things that would make for a "more perfect" union?

In our history we revolted against the british. In our history we introduced new drafts of the constitution. But we've never done both at the same time.

From what I see from over here.. it is only un-American to revolt/complain against the US government when the Republican's are in the White House. Demonstrators during Bush were "un-American", "terrorist lovers" and god know what, but now they are hero's and "real American's".

I wouldn't consider either of protest groups to be a part of a revolution.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Articles of Confederation? You're more than 220 years late on that one. And the Articles of Confederation had nothing remotely similar to our Bill of Rights attached.

Thats why I say modeled after both. I prefer a real bottom-top confederacy over this top-bottom "federation" we have today. A voluntary confederate style union with a bill of rights. The articles of confederation and the bill of rights had the security of liberty in common. The articles of confederation did not stipulate what those liberties were, however.

 

[goldcatt]

Thats why I say modeled after both. I prefer a real bottom-top confederacy over this top-bottom "federation" we have today. A voluntary confederate style union with a bill of rights. The articles of confederation and the bill of rights had the security of liberty in common. The articles of confederation did not stipulate what those liberties were, however.

We tried a confederation. It lasted less than a decade before it was clear it wouldn't work and the Constitutional Congress was called. Why? Because you can't have one person trying to walk multiple dogs, all bigger than the human, stronger than the human and determined to spend half their time fighting each other for dominance and the other half pulling in separate directions.

Not only that, but a single universal Bill of Rights to be applied to all of the States demands a single central entity stronger than the individual States in order to enforce it. When for example Virginia wants to go back to a declared state religion and has the power to thumb its nose at a weak confederate government attempting to enforce freedom of religion, your Bill of Rights goes down the drain with your freedoms.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

If it's Unamerican to revolt - then why are 'revolt-type actions' protected in many ways via the Constitution? . . . Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, protection against search/seizure and so on, the power of the vote lying in the hand's of the people, the right to question the government's actions and decisions and even challenge these in the Supreme Court - these are things that give *power* to revolutionaries rather than taking it away.

The Constitution doesn't just set our rights or secure our liberties - it also helps us protect ourselves from a possible tyrannical presidency and congress.

I guess when most people think 'revolution' they think 'fisti-cuff fighting' - when that's not the case.
Revolution more often happens whenever there's a movement which changes what a people expect, require, and demand from their government if it forces the government to change how it's been functioning and what it has valued then it's successful.

We're amid a revolution, now - believe it or not.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The country was founded by revolutionaries who revolted against their "rightful" king, and did so with little or no legal foundation.

It would be a smidge hypocritical to denigrate modern day revolutionaries given that we were founded on revolution.

Having said that, a lot of it would depend on motivations and goals. Stormfront revolt intending to establish an Aryan State? Uh, no. Secessionists who want their State to be its own nation? Perhaps... certainly the US government has supported some former Russian-Federation states seeking independence, so it would be hypocritical to deny it to a US State.

Holy cow!

We agree. :mrgreen:

 

[goldcatt]

I guess when most people think 'revolution' they think 'fisti-cuff fighting' - when that's not the case.
Revolution more often happens whenever there's a movement which changes what a people expect, require, and demand from their government if it forces the government to change how it's been functioning and what it has valued then it's successful.

We're amid a revolution, now - believe it or not.

You have a good point here. Are we talking revolution by lawful and peaceful means, or armed insurrection? One is very much American. The other....by definition if you're advocating violent overthrow of the nation, I'd say you're probably against it.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

How about this: Revolting against the Federal Government to put in it's place a new Federal Government and a Constitution that does more to limit congress and the executive branch, makes more rules for congressional proceedings, and says that the collection of revenue can't be done through extortion, and other things that would make for a "more perfect" union?

The problem you're going to run into is the very same thing that made the revolution possible to begin with -- social context.

Even if you could topple the feds and command enough respect from a great enough percentage of the population to have any opportunity whatsoever to have any kind of influence over the resulting founding documents, you wouldn't achieve your ultimate goal of reigning in the government.

You'd either end up with founding documents that everyone basically ignores, or with founding documents that do not come anywhere near what you're trying to achieve.

People, by and large, claim to want to be left alone by their government, but in reality they want as much of the day-to-day chugging of the country to be overseen by the government as possible provided that they don't witness this oversight too often.

That way, they can attend to affairs that are strictly personal in scope while pretending that the government doesn't have the power it has.



TED,
Who refers you to Malcolm Gladwell's TED talk on spaghetti sauce for a better explanation of how what people say they want often differs from what they actually choose to have.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

You have a good point here. Are we talking revolution by lawful and peaceful means, or armed insurrection? One is very much American. The other....by definition if you're advocating violent overthrow of the nation, I'd say you're probably against it.

We can, if we feel it's necessary, we can stave off a tyrannical government through force - it's a protected right if it's done properly . . . but I don't think that's *ever* necessary and or will ever have to happen. More so valuable and used far more often we have freedom of assembly (so we can protest), freedom of speech (so we can share ideas of change and criticize government's actions) and so forth.

Examples of revolutions that changed our government's focus: Vietnam protests (without the support of the people a war will fail - "Art of War"), Women's right to vote (using our Constitutional rights of assembly, speech, etc - to prove that women were, in fact, equals - and granted women's suffrage), and the abolishing of Jim Crow laws - once again - the people's granted rights trumped the government's actions.

There *indeed* was violence involved in all three of these - often when protests got out of control or when government exerted force on the people in various ways - but these revolutions that changed government *did not* depend *solely* on violence - like a Coup - nor did it require the physical overthrowing of government itself. We, instead, voted out various elected officials that we *did not* approve of or appreciate. Those who remained in power were *forced* to change lest they lose the support of the people.

The violence that goes along with these and other moments of revolution in our history actually center around violence being a method of bringing attention to the issues. . .by gaining attention in the media - thus turning everyone's attentions to the actions *for* and *against* the people's views and stance . . . which helped support the revolution and *make* it happen, or which dissolve the revolution and make it *just a riot*

 

[LaMidRighter]

You have a good point here. Are we talking revolution by lawful and peaceful means, or armed insurrection? One is very much American. The other....by definition if you're advocating violent overthrow of the nation, I'd say you're probably against it.

I think at certain points either are very American. Of course we all want to get the most optimal adherence to the social contract in the most peaceful manner possible as I don't think anyone in their right mind wants violence. We aren't at the point yet or hopefully in the near future of needing a bloody revolt and I think we all agree that hopefully it would never be needed........but.......anytime Americans stand up for our country and not necessarily it's standing governance in order to preserve our ideals I would say that is as American as apple pie, patriotic songs, and noble citizen soldiers who would willingly lay it all on the line for those concepts.

 

[goldcatt]

I think at certain points either are very American. Of course we all want to get the most optimal adherence to the social contract in the most peaceful manner possible as I don't think anyone in their right mind wants violence. We aren't at the point yet or hopefully in the near future of needing a bloody revolt and I think we all agree that hopefully it would never be needed........but.......anytime Americans stand up for our country and not necessarily it's standing governance in order to preserve our ideals I would say that is as American as apple pie, patriotic songs, and noble citizen soldiers who would willingly lay it all on the line for those concepts.

I agree with you on standing up to preserve our ideals by nonviolent means, although I'm willing to bet we don't agree on exactly what those ideals are. Which is also very American.

But something you said intrigues me. Under what circumstances would you consider a bloody revolt to be necessary, or "American"?

 

[rathi]

Revolution is just a means for accomplishing an end. Determining if a revolution is justified depends on the circumstances under which it happens. The primary factors to consider are: how bad is the current regime? How much damage is the revolution going to cause? What improvements will the new government bring? Using that standard, overthrowing the current U.S. government would be wrong. Complain as we might, nothing our leaders have done has truly crossed the line into tyranny. A revolution is quite unlikely to succeed, and one that did would cause untold damage. Finally, there is little reason to believe that the people doing the overthrowing would be any better than what he have know, and probably be a good deal worse.

 

[Goof Noodle]

Thomas Paine anyone?


If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it

 

[LaMidRighter]

I agree with you on standing up to preserve our ideals by nonviolent means, although I'm willing to bet we don't agree on exactly what those ideals are. Which is also very American.

But something you said intrigues me. Under what circumstances would you consider a bloody revolt to be necessary, or "American"?

The only time I could see bloody revolt being necessary would be a total legislating class takeover, something like suspending or ending the election process and the resulting civil abuses that would entitle them to. It would have to be a situation where the government concentrated all power into it's own hands and left no other viable options.

 

[Vincent]

From what I see from over here.. it is only un-American to revolt/complain against the US government when the Republican's are in the White House. Demonstrators during Bush were "un-American", "terrorist lovers" and god know what, but now they are hero's and "real American's".

Haha, yeah. Protesters during Bush years were called anti-American by the Republicans and praised by Democrats. Now protesters are being touted as wonderful people by the Republicans and called extremists and possible terrorists by Democrats.

 

[Goshin]

Haha, yeah. Protesters during Bush years were called anti-American by the Republicans and praised by Democrats. Now protesters are being touted as wonderful people by the Republicans and called extremists and possible terrorists by Democrats.

Wow, you mean there are, like, partisans on both sides? Oh say it ain't so, Joe! :mrgreen:

 

[R. Shackleferd]

You wouldn't achieve your ultimate goal of reigning in the government. You'd either end up with founding documents that everyone basically ignores, or with founding documents that do not come anywhere near what you're trying to achieve.

How do you figure? Such an activist group would've most likely had a draft constitution written already to unite with and a temporary dissolution of the federal government would allow for delegates of each state that wants admission to the union a platform to argue the constitution.

 

[molten_dragon]

It very much depends on how you define 'unamerican'. From what I can tell, most people use the term as meaning 'someone who disagrees with a government that I agree with'. In that case, at any one time I would guess roughly half the country would tell you yes, it is, and the other half would tell you no, it isn't. Which half would say what depends on whether dems or repubs control the government.

 

[Goshin]

How do you figure? Such an activist group would've most likely had a draft constitution written already to unite with and a temporary dissolution of the federal government would allow for delegates of each state that wants admission to the union a platform to argue the constitution.

Historically, most revolutions have not ended well. The American revolution was an exception.

French revolution: Robespierre, The Committee for Public Safety, mass executions of dissidents... followed by a dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte.

The Russian Revolution... we know how well that worked out. The Cuban Revolution gave us Castro and a Cuba where poverty beyond our reckoning is the norm. Pol Pot and the killing fields.... I could go on, but suffice it to say a revolution that actually ends with a better and more-free government seems to be a rare thing.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

How do you figure? Such an activist group would've most likely had a draft constitution written already to unite with and a temporary dissolution of the federal government would allow for delegates of each state that wants admission to the union a platform to argue the constitution.

Just take a look at the current political environment of the United States. People have generally decided that endless rounds of "gotcha" makes for an acceptable alternative to reasoned, civil discourse. It's no longer about what anybody has to say, but which 10 seconds makes them look the craziest.

 

[Helvidius]

I have a tendency to think not. If anything I think it's very American to revolt against the State so long as the revolt aims to create an independent state that is modeled after our articles of confederation and our bill of rights.

What about you?

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, not the federal government.