big_dave wrote:

Earwicker wrote:If, however, it is as simple as a leader has decided to keep power through violence because of his inability to give it up then I say give the people guns - and lots of em.

Who could possibly arbitrate this?

You don't arbitrate it. You plan for it, by warning the government not to take away the peoples' right to resist their government- like the Founding Fathers you hate did.

big_dave wrote:Thomas Jefferson is an irrelevant dead politician, not a political theorist or moralist, BTW.

clocker bob wrote:

big_dave wrote:

Earwicker wrote:If, however, it is as simple as a leader has decided to keep power through violence because of his inability to give it up then I say give the people guns - and lots of em.

Who could possibly arbitrate this?

You don't arbitrate it. You plan for it, by warning the government not to take away the peoples' right to resist their government

While this is the point - that an armed population would preclude any need for an external arbitrator - the question re Zimbabwe (or similar) would still stand I think.

I don't know the answer.
The result of arming the people would almost certainly be civil war.

But which is preferable a civil war where 'the people' have a chance of defeating a corrupt and oppressive military or a country where 'the people' just remain oppressed without any hope at all of fighting back?

War's obviously never pretty but for me the first would be the preferred option.

big_dave wrote:Tyranny is not an absolute or measurable concept, it is subject to culture and semantics the same as anything else

I'm inclined to agree.

I'm not sure what you are insinuating with your link but I look at it like this.
If a population of a given country has expressed it's desire for a particular government in an election and is then denied their choice by brutal (or other) means I think that population justified in using arms against those who would deny them their choice.

Given that I fail to see why your link is relevant.

Are you saying that only the whites in Zimbabwe want rid of Mugabe?
Do you think it is mainly whites killed in recent weeks for thinking about voting for the opposition?

In your opinion in recent history (let's say the last hundred years) has there ever been a justified armed revolt in any country?

Earwicker wrote:Given that I fail to see why your link is relevant.

The men who call themselves Boers are a minority group in South Africa. They are, at least in places, arming themselves against people they see as tyrants.

In your opinion in recent history (let's say the last hundred years) has there ever been a justified armed revolt in any country?

Ireland. Algeria. Both understandable. "Justified" is not the word to use about warfare.

big_dave wrote:

Earwicker wrote:Given that I fail to see why your link is relevant.

The men who call themselves Boers are a minority group in South Africa. They are, at least in places, arming themselves against people they see as tyrants.

True.
Did you think I was suggesting a minority group in Zimbabwe should be armed to fight Mugabe?
If so I shall clear it up.
I was saying the population at large - being denied their elected representatives - should be armed so they can fight their oppressors (or at least the elected representatives should be armed).*

big_dave wrote:

In your opinion in recent history (let's say the last hundred years) has there ever been a justified armed revolt in any country?

Ireland. Algeria. Both understandable. "Justified" is not the word to use about warfare.

It certainly is for those fighting the wars.

I was asking for a judgment call regarding particular events.
Are you a pacifist?

I have no problem with it if you are. I'm just asking.


*I shall restate here that I am working on what I have been presented by the mainstream press.

Earwicker wrote:Did you think I was suggesting a minority group in Zimbabwe should be armed to fight Mugabe?

No. You said give the people guns, I asked who should be giving the guns, how they should be given and who would decide on their use.

I was saying the population at large - being denied their elected representatives - should be armed so they can fight their oppressors (or at least the elected representatives should be armed).

And I asked who would abitrate this.

Not just say "yes" or "no", but actually make the decision of when and who to fight. When you say "arm the people" you are talking about one entity arming the people, not the people arming themselves. This is different from saying "let the people take arms if they wish", you said give them guns.

20th Century Africa is a list of struggles against "tyranny" that have ended in pocket holocausts. I won't justify that in the name of some "anti-tyranny" ideology, particularly if loaded with contemporary American tropes of personal freedom, libertarianism and neo-liberalism.

Are you a pacifist?

I am.

I do not see the point in dividing conflicts into justified and unjustified after the fact. Even the World War II, the easiest justified armed conflict that we have ever seen saw the allies commit atrocities and feats of humanitarianism alike. When we can cannot divide between "ends" and "means", how can we divide by "justified" and "unjustified"?

Combat is not something you can split into justified and unjustified, despite the fact that there is always a process of justification - which is as much to do with cultural identity and economics as it is with the morality of the battlefield.

Do you think that it would be tasteful for someone in an internet forum to start dividing the warfare of history into "good" and "bad" categories? Pointless. The only reason for me to do that would be if I was afraid of being called a fence-sitter, which I am not.

big_dave wrote:

I was saying the population at large - being denied their elected representatives - should be armed so they can fight their oppressors (or at least the elected representatives should be armed).

And I asked who would abitrate this.

And I said I didn't know.
I could suggest a couple who certainly shouldn't but the point was - in the context of this thread - that if the population were already armed they could raise them themselves and wouldn't be intimidated into accepting a dictatorship as they seem to have been in recent weeks.

big_dave wrote:20th Century Africa is a list of struggles against "tyranny" that have ended in pocket holocausts. I won't justify that in the name of some "anti-tyranny" ideology, particularly if loaded with contemporary American tropes of personal freedom, libertarianism and neo-liberalism.

Good for you. That answers the question then - you don't think there have been any justifiable armed revolts in any country - ever.

I think there have been some.

We disagree.

Again.

big_dave wrote:

Are you a pacifist?

I am.

Well that explains your answers then.

Fair dos.

big_dave wrote:I do not see the point in dividing conflicts into justified and unjustified after the fact. Even the World War II, the easiest justified armed conflict that we have ever seen saw the allies commit atrocities and feats of humanitarianism alike. When we can cannot divide between "ends" and "means", how can we divide by "justified" and "unjustified"?

So you do not think Nazism was worth fighting against?

I realise the load that Nazism comes with but I - personally - just find it hard to get into the mindset that says it should not have been fought against.
I don't judge pacifists by the way. I have respect for the position in fact. It's just one I cannot see myself.

big_dave wrote:Combat is not something you can split into justified and unjustified,

No - combat is not something you can split into justified and unjustified.
I can do it just fine.

big_dave wrote:Do you think that it would be tasteful for someone in an internet forum to start dividing the warfare of history into "good" and "bad" categories? Pointless.

I'm not sure what taste has to do with it - or the fact that it's on an internet forum.
You're a pacifist - fine but I think most (?) would see fighting against a violent dictator as entirely justifiable.

I don't see anything wrong with enabling someone to fight against a dictator.

Earwicker wrote:Good for you. That answers the question then - you don't think there have been any justifiable armed revolts in any country - ever.

I never said that.

So you do not think Nazism was worth fighting against?

I realise the load that Nazism comes with but I - personally - just find it hard to get into the mindset that says it should not have been fought against.
I don't judge pacifists by the way. I have respect for the position in fact. It's just one I cannot see myself.

Conflict should not be judged on the ideology, but the casualities and the gains of the conflict. World War II is not "justified" merely because the democracies were fighting fascist corporation.

No - combat is not something you can split into justified and unjustified.
I can do it just fine.

Congratulations on rendering the murders and sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of your fellow human beings into something with all the depth and bredth of a light-switch.

You're a pacifist - fine but I think most (?) would see fighting against a violent dictator as entirely justifiable.

I don't see anything wrong with enabling someone to fight against a dictator.

I also don't see what is wrong with Flash Gordon blasting Ming the Merciless with a raygun, or Frodo Baggins slaughtering dozens of Orcs. Fantasy situations do not have any relevance to the real world warfare.

Why should I be pro/anti magically giving people magical guns to fight a hypothetical dictator?

Anything in the name of Zion is fine by me.