/townhall/ - Townhall

>>8532
>If people have the right to rebel when they feel their rights are violated (but the state disagrees, obviously), why do states also have the right to use violence to subdue the rebellion?
I think the pivotal question here is "Is the state violating the rights of the people badly enough to justify rebellion?".  If this question is answered affirmatively, then the people's rebellion is ethical and the state's attempts to suppress the rebellion are unethical.  On the other hand, if the question is answered negatively, then the rebellion is unethical and the state's suppression of it is ethical.  Of course, different people may disagree on the answer to the question.

>>8533
>this question is answered
Those doing the rebelling and state powers have presumably already answered.  You mean something like the majority are to answer, I think.

A government is a group of people that have come together for the united purpose of their own general well being.  Usually this includes the subjugation or exclusion of "outsiders", be they physical or ideological.

In this sense, Hobbes and Locke actually agree on more than the image implies.  An entity that threatens natural rights likely does so through a state of war, or at least violence, and law and order must be imposed to achieve this.  The "peace and defense" offered by the "great leviathan" is what provides the freedom Locke seeks.  Locke dresses it up a bit differently with some more agreeable optics, but both the means and the ends are largely the same.

>"If people have the right to rebel when they feel their rights are violated (but the state disagrees, obviously), why do states also have the right to use violence to subdue the rebellion?"

The State employs violence by its nature.  Its only tool for accomplishing anything at all is the imposition of violence.  And since The State is already employing violence, a rebel can only enact change by retaliating with violence.

>>8540
>A government is a group of people that have come together for the united purpose of their own general well being.

Yes, both philosophers believe that being part of at least some kinds of states is more secure than living in a state of nature (anarchy).

>Usually this includes the subjugation or exclusion of "outsiders", be they physical or ideological.

Until there is world government [that welcomes all as citizens], there will be boundaries, yes.

>An entity that threatens natural rights likely does so through a state of war, or at least violence, and law and order must be imposed to achieve this.  The "peace and defense" offered by the "great leviathan" is what provides the freedom Locke seeks.  Locke dresses it up a bit differently with some more agreeable optics, but both the means and the ends are largely the same.

They differ in their views on rebellion, but both are basically in favor of states.  In a case where an individual or group subject to the state believes rights have been violated and the state agrees, there is no conflict.  Presumably people hope this is the usual case with state power.

>The State employs violence by its nature.  Its only tool for accomplishing anything at all is the imposition of violence.

I like the term "monopoly on the use of violence" -- states hold that final leverage.  Whether I agree it's the only tool depends on whether you assess commands or propaganda as violence.

>a rebel can only enact change by retaliating with violence.

Some rebellions escalate to violence because it seemed the best or only effective option to those rebelling.  (Or maybe it was a venting of anger.)  One can hold a moral stance that all violence is justice -- a state may generally use more of it than an individual, but has no particular right to do so.  It's a fairly amoral position, though.  I don't know if I can go that far.

>>8534
>You mean something like the majority are to answer, I think.
What I mean is that each individual must answer the question "Is the state violating the rights of the people badly enough to justify rebellion?" for himself/herself.  You noted an apparent contradiction between believing "people have the right to rebel" and "states also have the right to use violence to subdue the rebellion".  The contradiction is resolved by noting that, for each particular case, a given individual most likely believes that only one of these is justified.

>>8547
OK.  So if I find the state unjust, the state is unjust to me.  When others find the state just, the state is just in resisting me.  Everybody is right and likewise has the right to dominate or do violence in the name of their righteousness.

This sounds like the state of war states were suppose to improve.

>>8548
>>8548
>So if I find the state unjust, the state is unjust to me.
Not necessarily.  It is possible that you were mistaken in believing that the state was unjust to you.
>When others find the state just, the state is just in resisting me.
Again, not necessarily.  They might be mistaken.

>>8548
>This sounds like the state of war
This is why it is important for the people to develop a shared sense of justice, at least in regards to a boundary of when unjustice justifies rebellion.  For example, most people would agree that a state that criminalized dissent or banned guns would be so unjust as to justify rebellion.

>>8550
>It is possible that you/others were mistaken
So some entity that is more than an individual, that is not reliably the state itself, and that represents a shared sense of morality will legitimately judge who may use violence.

>>8550
>  For example, most people would agree that a state that criminalized dissent or banned guns would be so unjust as to justify rebellion.

Pretty sure thats inaccurate.

Signed, lp.  Remember to hate me for who i am.  I hate repeating my work.

>>8532
The State does not exist for the people.  Thats lies and rosy colored glasses.

The Founders quoted Locke while owning slaves, fraudulently misrepresenting a riot as the "boston massacre" a lie still taught today, etc all to keep slaughtering Indians after breaking the British Empire financially doing so.

Government for the people is lies every generation unless it is made true by the lives and conviction of every generation.

Btw anyone notice the planets approaching extinction event again?  Humanity survived many in its 200 million years here.  This one will again knock us back to the cradle like 12k years again and its not a moment too soon.

>>8562
>Thats lies and rosy colored glasses.
Most would agree states exist to contradict some.  Those with more Calvinistic views of humanity would say authority exists to keep most everyone's base impulses in check.  

The state is seen as having a moral function -- "for the people."  Social contract theory attempts to derive this moral function explicitly.  I'm still trying to decide whether I consider this rationalization for an implicit truth -- faith in the state or at least faith in the habit of trusting state power, or an important work of logic.  Locke leaves holes; Hobbes comes to an authoritarian perspective nobody can really stomach.

>The Founders quoted Locke while owning slaves
Oh, yes.  Jefferson slipped in 'happiness' to replace Locke's 'property,' knowing the scope of what property meant to early Americans.  But Jefferson never moved in any but small ways to do much about his own Virginian holdings.

I believe if you take any moral idea -- rule of law, fairness, justice, non-violence, public safety, honesty, natural rights -- and apply it to state activity you will find discrepancies.  Hobbes would say, tough luck, better than anarchy.  Locke: maybe you rebel, and form a new state.  Perhaps that's good.  Otherwise iterate until you get to a state that tolerably respects your rights.  Or the rights of whoever's left of you, anyway.

>unless it is made true by the lives and conviction of every generation

What is meant here?

>notice the planets approaching extinction event again

Some do, it has been called the anthropocene extinction.