Quote:
| Originally Posted by Dark_crow Violent insurrection is your words and I just used them in the “context of revolution”. My original words were: I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end. Which you interpreted as “violent insurrection.” That’s when I complained about you “twisting words.” Then Excon picked-up on your lead and said, “violent revolution.” Then you came back with, “armed revolution.” |
So what's your point? That you condone only revolution
without violence? Has there ever been a revolution that didn't depend on violence or the threat of violence? The American Revolution sure did.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Dark_crow During revolution (Which was my premise) there is no legal authority |
Sure there is. The existing government is the legal authority, at least until it's overthrown. After that, the new government assumes legal jurisdiction and responsibility.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Dark_crow (there is no consent of the governed) |
"The governed" is not a monolithic entity. Some consent to be ruled by one side, some by the other, some consent to neither, and no party to the conflict has the consent of all.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Dark_crow all political connection is dissolved between two parties. There is no immorality in that act alone. |
In a war, there's always plenty of immorality to go around, I'm sure.
I'm sorry, but your argument that nonviolent civil disobedience is morally inferior to revolution as a means to redress of grievances is preposterous. Give it up.