An Inalienable Right To Rebel
Does man have an inalienable right to rebel against his own government? Thomas Jefferson once said famously "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." He was speaking about the Shay's Rebellion, a revolt by farmers in Western Masschusetts against the court system being used by rich landowners and banks to lock smaller landowners in debtor's prisons. Most people only ever hear that quick blurb from Jefferson, usually quoted by libertarians justifying their more shocking statements in favor of anarchy. Historians sometimes trot it out when they wish to paint Jefferson in a light of slight lunacy, but he goes on in his letter to explain himself: "I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governments so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not ot discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Jefferson is saying that sometimes government does not work well, and there are times when people can not find a way to redress their grievances in any fashion other than by taking up arms. In that manner they so shock the nation that whatever caused their grief in the first place becomes openly discussed.
This raises the question: Do we all have an inalienable right to rebel against our own government? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection for people to peacably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. It reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". The Supreme Court has made it very clear in rulings that the right to assemble must be done peacably, and that we do not have a Constitutional right to riot. Petition of grievances is a broad term that the Supreme Court has rarely taken up. There have numerous times in US History that sedition laws have been passed that have prevented people from speaking up against the government, and in each of those cases, the Court has refused to rule on challenges. Does any of this matter in a person's right to rebel? Even more importantly, doesn't this issue extend beyond U.S. borders? I'm speaking of human rights, not the rights of American citizens. I think we need to speak more broadly. First, however, I want to look at some terminology.
What Does It Mean to Rebel?
What does it even mean to rebel? Rebel comes from the Latin word bellum, meaning war, so its meaning is to make war against a person, idea or thing. The standard dictionary meaning is "To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority". But you don't really need force to rebel do you? Ghandi led a rebellion against the colonial British authority without using force. The students in Tiananman Square rebelled against the Chinese Authority during their democracy demonstrations, and they didn't act out of a violent spirit. I rebelled against my parents, not by force, but by sulleness and refusing to give in to what they would ask me to do. You probably did too. I don't believe that constitutes an act of force, unless we're going to include "force of will" which seems a distinct issue.
So to say that someone rebels means in essence that they no longer agree with the status quo and act outside the established methods of changing the system from within. They are instead seeking to redress their grievances in an unaccepted way. Certainly peaceful acts of civil disobience, like the lunch counter sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement would qualify. So would Ghandi's non-violent protest. It would also include Shay's Rebellion, and of course the Revolutionary War. I don't think many people would claim that people don't have a right to conduct acts of civil disobience to make their feelings known, but do people have a right to act out in violence against the government?
The Limits of Rebellion
I believe people do have a right to not only rebel against their government, but also to use violence against their government. However, I also believe that people should not initiate force against their government first, and that the bar is set very high on what would drive a person to act violently against anyone, including the government. I don't think that Timothy McVeigh was correct when he bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma. I think he was very much in the wrong. Yes, the government initiated force against the Branch Davidians, and that was wrong. But to carry out the kind of horrific destruction that he did was not rebellion, it was terrorism, and terrorism of the most chilling kind.
People don't like the status quo disrupted. They don't want rebellion, which often threatens complete upheaval of a way of life. Most people would prefer that things change slowly, and from within. But is a person required to first address their grievances with their government? Indeed a government that supresses its people and does not respect their rights will not accept change from within. Despotic governments seek to grip power perpetually. Can we honestly expect of people in places like North Korea to wait for small social changes to occur organically to improve their lives? I don't think that most people would support that position, just as most people, myself included, would not support someone like McVeigh, or Eric Rudolph given how open our culture and political system are. They had ways of addressing the situation without resorting to violence.
It would seem that the matter here is one of degree: you can rebel to the extent that your natural rights are withheld from you. If you live under a government, such as the United States, that does not withold most of your natural rights than you should work within the framework the government provides. If you exist at the opposite end of the spectrum than you have the ability to take up arms and retake those rights. While that seems a good idea in writing, the practice of this idea is much harder to implement.
Whither Natural Rights?
What if your definition of natural rights is framed by the ideas expoused by Karl Marx? Then the US government is in opposition to your notion of rights and you should have the ability to rise up in armed insurrection against Washington. What if your concept of natural rights includes the "right" to live in a country free of people that do not look like you? Ditto then for rising up against Washington. I don't know that I, or any most other people would support a person's right to rebel in that circumstance. So the real question is not really whether a person has the right to rebel, but how do we come to a practicable definition of natural rights?
I understand natural rights to be those rights that afford me the maximum freedoms while not infringing on the freedoms of others. The Bill of Rights seems to stem from that same ideal, as does most declaration of human rights. We have the right to free speech, the association with others, freedom to worship how we choose, to be armed, to own property without undue interference by the government, to not be locked up without just cause, and to be tried fairly by a jury of our peers. Nothing in those enumerated rights lists a right to rebellion. The Bill of Rights also included the 10th Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Again, it is not explicit in a statement that people have a right to rebellion, though it seems to imply that if such a right exists, it's reserved to the people.
That's one of the problems with "natural rights". Other than the works of philosophers and statesmen, none of which completely agree, there's no master list of natural rights. But we do tend, as free people, to agree on one thing: rights do not extend from the government, but rather are an inherent part of being human. A person living in Bejing has the same rights as a person living in Toronto, only they live under different governments which take divergent views on how to govern. It is, indeed, the nature of government that by forming, some rights end up being restricted, or worse, taken away altogether. Governments almost always work to extend and strengthen their grip on power, in part by restricting rights. People should, in response, push back on the government to assert their rights.
An Inalienable Right to Rebel
That asserting of their rights is in fact, rebelling. Just because it does not include guns, bombs, and conspiracies doest not mean it's not rebellion. We've stated it before: rebellion has been done and can be done in many ways. Rebellion can be acts of civil disobedience. Rebellion can be the act of speaking up. Rebellion is any act against the will of the government or the direction of the government. So perhaps we should reconsider: Man's right to rebellion should not be dependent on how free their government is. Rather, we should expect that the nature of man's rebellion be based on the nature of his government. If one's government is democratic and free, your rebellion should be tempered but if you are without your freedoms, your rebellion should escalate to meet force with force.
This is all rather silly in the end. I talk about limits on rebellion, as if it is something that can be limited. The act of rebellion is the act of working against limits, or trying to destroy them entirely. It is my opinion though that people do have the right to rise up against authority, in whatever manner it manifests, and push back, or in the more extreme case, fight back. All of the freedoms that we do have, the natural freedoms we possess by right of being born human mean nothing in the end if we are not allowed to defend them when they are under attack. It is for that reason that I believe man does have an inalienable right to rebel.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
_Then what I am willing to pay for the privilege after I have worked out the ethics and consequences from more than just my view.
Electronic Civil Disobedience
James how did you get the image in your comments .... wait I think I remember.
Insert image: [img]http://Image URL[/img]
Insert image: [img]http://www.ewanspence.com/blog/images/civil_civil_disobedience.jpg/[img]
It is necessary to be willing to die for ones beliefs, but not to kill for them.
As for our government, here in the U.S., we are responsible for what we have. Remember almost 50% of elgible citizens do not vote.
It is as Jeremy Bentham famously remarked, "Nonsense on stilts."
Before you jump up, beat your breast and proclaim your 'inalienable right' to defend your 'natural rights' by whatever manner, you really need to revisit your belief in natural rights. Specifically, where do natural rights come from? And how do we reconcile the fact natural rights always are derived from what we can do, what we desire, and what we ought to do---and that, frequently, these three elements are often in conflict with the other?
I'm not surprised that you would quote Jeremy Bentham to discredit natural rights. As a founder of utilitarianism, he could not advocate or agree with natural rights because utilitarianism held that whatever made the masses happy was the best use of the law. That concept certainly flies in the face of natural rights, which states that even if it makes people unhappy, people have certain rights which are inviolate.
I'm pretty sure that most people would be happy to tell the KKK they can't march down a street espousing hate, or ditto for Fred Phelps, but we can't just make up laws which violate their rights to free speech.
Natural rights are those that are discoverable in nature, but not creatable by law. You do not give someone the right to free speech, they can speak freely in nature. A person's natural rights end where it impacts your freedoms. Really Jade, this should be common sense.
Well someone is going to have to sort out the reasons for the conflict between desire and ought to do, or at least how you understand that conflict to exist.
Maurice Reeves,
As one who takes what ever natural rights I feel are mine, always being cognizant that I might be in conflict with the governing powers.
Great response.
Leaving aside the logical fallacy at the end--have you really thought this through?
First, you might try defining what a right is. I find many people use the word right in the same manner as they use God--as a way of stopping debate, as in God says it is so...
The same goes for the word right and it is sloppy, uncritical thinking. You claim a right to free speech but you can't tell us why--only that you desire such a thing.
Common sense, no?
In your somewhat utopian view of nature, if I'm stronger than you --I can take whatever I want from you. That's real life nature: I can violate whatever rights you think you're entitled simply by virtue of my belief that I have a right.
Sometimes it is less evil to kill the evil than to be pasively and submissively killed by the evil. Doing nothing in the face of evil is making a choice, and not all choices are good. Bonhoeffer understood this.
In nature, I may believe I have a right to be happy; I may believe my family or tribe has the same right. But that belief may well entail taking from you or yours to ensure that right.
Implied but not explicitly stated is the idea that the right to rebellion is incremental. Speak, speak louder, act peaceably, act forcibly, and so on. Also implied but not explicitly stated is that as we assert our rights, we also must accept responsibility for our actions.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is in prison.
Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862)
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963),
Maurice: nice quote, took me a moment to figure it out though! When is the last time you saw an actual soapbox!
If you want to kill, and feel you can justify it. Why should I argue with you.
I only stated what I believed, I did not ask anyone else to agree with me.
I have not heard of any reports that MLK killed anyone.
I have not heard that quote.
It seems to me that Mr. Reeves is grappling with the idea of going up against our firmly entrenched federal government with the idea of changing it when the truth is that he and I and probably most of us simply wish to rest control of our government from the greedy corporations and prostitute politicians who have stolen it.
We Want Our Government Back; We Want To Safeguard Our Beloved Republic; We Seek To Reinstate, Protect and Defend Our Constitution, Not Destroy It.
I say to these ends, rebellion is well justified and overdue; we should start with national sick-outs and strikes also.
Still, the way is dangerous and difficult; it is a narrow path not to be taken without thorough preparation. We The People need to take a series of very small steps in the first place order to build properly toward the desired outcome.
This is why I ask all Gather members to join with me in boycotting gasoline and any other oil products during this entire July 4th weekend. Don't buy unless your life depends on it and if you do buy gas, please limit your consumption to the bare minimum necessary. And pass the word to all your friends and family.
Small and insignificant steps you say? So was the emptying of tea crates into Boston harbor. Thanks!
For The Republic!
G. John George
geo257@aol.com
I don't believe that boycotting oil and gas products over the 4th of July is going to have any effect against gas prices or against the government. But I admire your passion and hope you find a way to get your voice heard.
Great article, and fantastic debate. This is obviously a very multifaceted issue. One can actually look at the current war on terror and view each side as a perfect example of two groups "defending their rights". Al Qaida feels that it is their duty and God given right to "defend" Islam by any means necessary, including armed rebellion agains the world. Our governement and coalition forces feel it is our duty and right to defend our countries, our way of life, and spread the ideal of democracy. Obviously, each side feels that they are correct in their actions and that the other side is incorrect. To discuss the natural rights of humans is to argue which came first, the chicken or the egg. In nature, survival of the fittest is the rule of thumb, as pointed out by Jade, which means the strongest, quickest antelope will escape the hungry lion, while the weakest will become prey. The weakest lion will go without food, as the stronger lions devour the catch of the day. In reality, this is basically the way in is in the human world-the more powerful a society or government is, and power can be measured in many ways: money, weapons and military might, propaganda, etc., the more apt that society or government is to take control and prosper. As such, if a contingent of U.S. citizens banded together and possesses enough money, and a loud enough voice, they may be able to rebel successfully. If they possess enough firepower, which is utterly impossible considering the number of state, local, federal and military forces in the U.S., they could grab ahold of Washington by force. In essence, what I'm saying is that the rights we are speaking of in this article are all a matter of perception-we each as individuals perceive that we have certain inalienable rights, which in turn lead to cultural and societal beliefs and rights, and in turn leads to conflict between factions within societies and between societies.
I believe that uncompromising non-violence in every situation is a rather misguided notion; I believe one has to consider the nature of one's advesary. That MLK chose non-violence speaks volumes about what he considered the nature of America.
The shoah? Just a long sleep according to Ghandi, nothing worth resisting. Radical non-violence poorly chosen can lead to just as much death as violence poorly considered. Just something to chew on.
Gladly.
As we both know, totalitarian/dictatorial regimes are characterized by two elements germane to this issue: 1) such governments tend to represent the interests of those holding in power to the detriment of its citizens; and 2) a lack of freedom.
I'd argue that your "state of nature" inevitably leads to such repressive regimes as self-interested groups decide their rights trump everyone else's.
And let's face it; the dogma used to justify such tyrannical regimes is based on the same kind of sloppy, uncritical thinking that surrounds natural rights. There's a lot of talk about "manifest destinies" and "utopias" and "paradises."
IOW, the debate about natural rights is largely faith-based; that is, natural rights are dictated by what some people believe they are and are largely subjective.
My point exactly. The rights of the masses are generally determined by the most powerful in a particular society. Thus, "survival of the fittest"?
We all know that utopia sounds great, but is just a fantasy.
And no, the dogmas used to justify most tyrannical governments does not come from a notion of rights people naturally have but from "the government knows best" and how government supposedly can do no wrong. Socialism and utilitarianism float both such ideas. Socialism claims that the government knows best when it comes to directing people's care and people's economic activities, while utilitarianism says that since all rights and freedoms flow from the government, whatever the government decides is correct is what is correct.
In a truly utilitarian government, if you don't have the freedom of speech, it's not a valid right to ask for.
What you're trying to allude to are the tactics that despots use to misdirect people from questioning their policies. By speaking of paradises and utopias the leaders turn people's attentions away from the horrors in front of them.
Don't we, along with other nations and the UN, already criticize what we decry as "totalitarian regimes"? And don't those regimes, in turn, criticize us? Like Jade said, it's all a matter of opinion. And opinions are like...
And I've never spoken of utopia. You're mixing my words with Jade's. I speak of people asserting their natural rights.
My point back to her was that if indeed our rights are merely granted to us by our leaders than indeed we would not have the right to criticize any government because rights are merely some arbitrary post in the ground each individual government gets to plant where they see fit for their people, and each and every decision is valid.
SW is wrong on many levels. It is a breathtaking example of fractured history and anti-semitism.
First, WRT anti-semitism--there is a myth (usually forwarded by gun loons) that the Jews were implicit in the Holocaust because they did not rise up and defend themselves. This is a notion emphatically rejected by the ADL.
Second, fractured history. Gandhi:
The notion advanced by folks like SW is that Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence doesn't work against a truly tyrannical foe. Folks like SW will point to the idea that the British didn't respond to Gandhi's non-violent tactics because they were too noble.
Baloney.
There is a much more practical reason the British didn't respond in a more draconian fashion--numbers.
The British presence in India was about 30,000. Compare that to almost 600M Indians.
Agreed. But don't those people escape oppression through forceful means? Whether in the example of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S., or in the example of the Cuban or U.S. Revolutions? Let's say the voice of the civil rights activists in the U.S. weren't powerful enough. Would anything have changed? Let's say Castro's militia was overpowered by the Cuban military. Would he still be in charge today? Bottom line: Power wins.
You've never spoken of utopia directly-but your stance reflects the ideal of utopia. Primarily, Jade and I agree that the term "natural rights" is purely subjective. As such, if each individual were able to assert their natural rights according to their own beliefs, chaos and anarchy would ensue. Thus, governments dictacte to us which rights are granted to all through constitutions and laws.
Example: Is it my natural right to smoke? Sure it is. Yet the government limits smokers, for example, from smoking in public places in order to protect the rights of non-smokers. I.E., my right to smoke encroaches on a non-smokers right to be smoke free. Thus, a law limiting my rights. Is it my natural right to choose not to wear a seatbelt? Sure. But if I get caught, I get fined. So, laws are created in order to PREVENT individuals from making their own choices with regard to their perceived individual natural rights. I know these examples are really watered down and perhaps simple, but they do illustrate the point.
Why, MR...I do believe you're asking me to prove a negative.
And no, the dogmas used to justify most tyrannical governments does not come from a notion of rights people naturally have but from "the government knows best" and how government supposedly can do no wrong.
Case in point; you tell me natural rights exist. You offer no supporting evidence for why--I am simply to believe you know what rights exist and why I should respect them.
OTOH, I believe we should have the freedom to discuss what are and what aren't rights and come to agreement. I believe we should both have a chance to present our views and perspectives as to what rights should be.
Ask yourself, which belief system is better?
Excellent point. Freedom of speech. Hmmmm, wait a minute...we HAVE freedom of speech in order to debate what laws should be passed to regulate our individual behavior in society...interesting concept!
MR:
"My point back to her was that if indeed our rights are merely granted to us by our leaders than indeed we would not have the right to criticize any government because rights are merely some arbitrary post in the ground each individual government gets to plant where they see fit for their people, and each and every decision is valid."
Sort of. Rights ARE arbitrary. In other words, a Mexican enters the U.S. and is granted a certain set of rights based on U.S. laws. A U.S. citizen enters Mexico and is granted an entirely different set of rights based on Mexican laws. Does that mean we cannot criticize another country's laws and perception of "rights"? Of course not. We do it to each other every day. I stand fast, however, in stating that each sovergn nation creates it's own system based on the morals and beliefs of the individuals in power, i.e., the government. Does it make these rights "valid", as you put it? In the eyes of the people that put them in place and of the citizens who abide by the rule of law, yes.
No William, you said the stronger make the rules, and I say that it's not always the stronger that win, unless you're counting strength of will. And yes, sometimes force is needed to secure freedom, but such is the nature of the dynamic between government and rights.
So what if our freedom of speech is removed? Does that mean you may no longer speak about what bothers you? Are you willing to live under that system? Is that what you truly believe? That if government says it doesn't exist you will too will no longer believe it exists?
Give me one example of a scenario in which the weaker force generated enough power to bend or shape the rules. And, of course, as in my example citing the Civil Rights Movement, strength of will is included in this argument.
With regards to my smoking argument, let's not split hairs over whether a business open to the public can be considered a public place or not. The bottom line is that a point is made, which in essence illustrates a powerful group, i.e. a non-smokers movement, along with the government, has decided that one individual's perceived natural right cannot encroach on another's. A perfect example of the stronger "will" dictating to the masses. I'm certain that if smokers had a stronger "will", they could reverse this decision. The stronger force won in this case.
I feel that if the government were to remove our freedom of speech, then there would be repercussions, i.e., a rebellion. And the strongest of the two factions would ultimately determine the rule of law.
With regards to the "natural rights" of individuals in foreign countries, tell that to each and every undocumented Mexican that is administratively removed from the U.S, without a trial. And tell that to any U.S. citizen that has attempted to open a business in Mexico, or obtain a driver's license, or was accused of a crime and imprisoned without due process. Again, your assertion reflects a certain utopia. Not reality.
Any individual or group can pretty much do or say whatever they want. Naturally. Their actions may or may not encroach on others. If those actions do encroach on others, they are either squashed by the established autorities, or, the established authorities are amended to accomodate, OR, the established authorities are replaced. Period.
If you're including strength of will then yes, you're correct, it is a matter of the stronger in some essence asserting some power over another group, but that does not mean some sort of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" as you've asserted.
But certainly when speaking of it always being the richest and most militarily powerful deciding a person's rights, I push back and say what I did before: "The rights themselves are not arbitrary, it is the government's reaction to and support of those rights that is arbitrary."
In history we've seen groups with less resources, less political power, and less military might evoke huge changes: Ghandi's movement, the Civil Rights movement, the student protests in China, the Nepalese people protesting for the return of a representative government, the Hungarian student protests in the 1960's, and so on.
Then we have to agree to disagree. In my humble opinion, it is survival of the fittest at its best.
I do see your point about the arbitrary reaction and support of individual rights, however you neglect to recognize that each individual has their own individual perception of what their individual rights are. So, is this a chicken and egg argument? Rights are born of individual opinions and feelings. Those with the most powerful force, be it violent or nonviolent, determine which of these rights are honored.
With regard to the movements you've mentioned-yes, these groups had less resources and military might, but to say they had less political power is contradictory to what they accomplished. Their accomplishments are a display of their political power.
If natural rights are not arbitrary, then please, forward me a list of my natural rights.
As far as "fractured history" (whatever the heck you mean by that), you want to do dueling Ghandi quotes? I'll be your huckleberry, try this on for size:
So, as long as people are ready to die, then killing is not necessary. Sounds great, so long as everybody follows that dictum. Might be a small problem there...
I am sad to see violence called the ultimate solultion. If you are planning to resort to violence at the onset, why bother with the other steps.
As for this war on terrorism, There are many questions, a few facts.
And you don't really wish to get into dueling Gandhi quotes because you're taking them completely out of context which doesn't reflect well on your honesty.
The problem with your latest quote is that it ignores context. The preceding paragraph to yours is:
My emphasis added.
The problem with you and those who like to sloppily research is that you fail to understand Gandhi's entire philosophy of non-violence. Instead, you merely hear the term "non-violence" and believe Gandhi's entire philosophy was to lay down in front of an oppressor.
It is simply poor scholarship.
Gosh, it appears the 2A has been revised by John. And that unanimous court decisions have been reversed.
In other news--up is down.
And while you're at it, show me where I said that Jews were complicit (not implicit) in the holocaust. Because, I didn't.
Basically, Gandhi espoused a philosophy known as Satyagraha . The basic premise is that violence is a crude--and in the long-term, ineffective--way of resolving conflict. Quite often, violence succeeds only temporarily, leaving an opportunity for escalating violence in the future. In India, we saw that nation throw off an oppressive British colonialism and the Brits left as friends.
But Gandhi was a realist, he understood non-violence doesn't necessarily work in all circumstance or scenarios. And he acknowledged this by saying:
The problem, as Gandhi saw it was that there was a greater temptation to resort to violent war immediately because it was felt to be more immediate.
But what do you think it was?
Yes I had ancestors on both sides of that war.
On the note of slavery.The importation of humans for slavery was already outlawed in the western hemisphere for decades before the start of the war. Only Brazil was left trafficking human beings until the around the 1880's. It puts a different perspective on things....