Is a revolution wrong?

[Chosen]

Is a revolution wrong?

Violence is wrong in a pointless context but not a just one. Let me simply characterize this. One of the main reasons deportation is not on the table with the US government is that they fear backlash. They fear violence and riots in previously American communities. They fear a physical retort. They do not fear their own citizenry. This creates an imbalance that allows an American senator to bring in foreign lobbyists to create a bill in secret for the invaders. Voting is not an option because they and their ilk control the information exchange that tempers and shapes opinion on such things. We cannot forget that this issue in its entirety was hidden from us and the public. Our founding fathers knew that a government that doesn’t fear its citizens is a corrupt government. The American politician only fears the media, academics and foreigners.

The manner in which the left/and some of the right functions is to demand extreme and unachievable concessions. The idea, and more so the way it works in the United States, is that if entities demand something far out there, the opposition will focus their energy contesting that far out point, the entity will then not back down on the issue so the resolution of the issue is something that generally falls short of the initial reach. Which is pretty much where the extremists wanted it to fall in the first place. I have seen leftist and right extremist groups (more left than right) use this strategy with America in foreign and domestic situations forever.

The invader lobby is in this realm of practice. Our government fears them and their backlash.
Consider the very thoughts of one of our Framers on revolution, I am sure Thomas Jefferson would have it expected it given our current situation:

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” –Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787

“The commotions that have taken place in America, as far as they are yet known to me, offer nothing threatening. They are a proof that the people have liberty enough, and I could not wish them less than they have. If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase. ‘Malo libertatem periculosam quam quietem servitutem.’ Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights.” –Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25

“Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one’s country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries.” –Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792

“As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people; but to admit them as ordinary and habitual instruments as a part of the machinery of the Constitution, would be to change that machinery by introducing moving powers foreign to it, and to an extent depending solely on local views, and, therefore, incalculable.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

[mconder]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

[shocker315]

From Freedom Force International

http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

RIGHTS ARE BORN ON THE BATTLEFIELD

In societies that have been sheltered for many generations from war and revolution, it is easy to forget that rights are derived from military power. That is their ultimate source. Initially, rights must be earned on the battlefield. They may be handed to the next generation as a gift, but they always are purchased on the battlefield. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is a classic example. The men who drafted that document were able to do so only because they represented the colonists who defeated the armies of Great Britain. Had they lost the War of Independence, they would have had no opportunity to write a Bill of Rights or anything else except letters of farewell before their execution.

Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. He could just as well have said rights. A man may declare that he has a right to do such and such derived from law or from a constitution or even from God; but, in the presence of an enemy or a criminal or a tyrant with a gun to his head, he has no power to exercise his proclaimed right. Rights are always based on power. If we lose our ability or willingness to physically defend our rights, we will lose them.

Now we come to the chasm between collectivists and individualists. If rights are earned on the battlefield, we may assume they belong to the winners, but who are they?

Do governments win wars or do the people? If governments win wars and people merely serve them as in medieval times, then governments hold the rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to the people. On the other hand, if people win wars and governments merely serve them in this matter, then the people hold rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to governments.

If our task is to define rights as we think they should be in a free society, we must choose between these two concepts. Individualists choose the concept that rights come from the people and governments are the servants. Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from governments and people are the servants. Individualists are nervous about that assumption because, if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty.

The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…."

Nothing could be clearer than that. The dictionary tells us that inalienable (spelled differently in colonial times) means “not to be transferred to another.” The assumption is that rights are the innate possession of the people. The purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them.

By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says:

"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law."

I repeat: If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.” In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it.

Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth – not except as determined by law, but no law. The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes.

[Chosen]

From Freedom Force International

http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

RIGHTS ARE BORN ON THE BATTLEFIELD

In societies that have been sheltered for many generations from war and revolution, it is easy to forget that rights are derived from military power. That is their ultimate source. Initially, rights must be earned on the battlefield. They may be handed to the next generation as a gift, but they always are purchased on the battlefield. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is a classic example. The men who drafted that document were able to do so only because they represented the colonists who defeated the armies of Great Britain. Had they lost the War of Independence, they would have had no opportunity to write a Bill of Rights or anything else except letters of farewell before their execution.

Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. He could just as well have said rights. A man may declare that he has a right to do such and such derived from law or from a constitution or even from God; but, in the presence of an enemy or a criminal or a tyrant with a gun to his head, he has no power to exercise his proclaimed right. Rights are always based on power. If we lose our ability or willingness to physically defend our rights, we will lose them.

Now we come to the chasm between collectivists and individualists. If rights are earned on the battlefield, we may assume they belong to the winners, but who are they?

Do governments win wars or do the people? If governments win wars and people merely serve them as in medieval times, then governments hold the rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to the people. On the other hand, if people win wars and governments merely serve them in this matter, then the people hold rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to governments.

If our task is to define rights as we think they should be in a free society, we must choose between these two concepts. Individualists choose the concept that rights come from the people and governments are the servants. Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from governments and people are the servants. Individualists are nervous about that assumption because, if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty.

The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…."

Nothing could be clearer than that. The dictionary tells us that inalienable (spelled differently in colonial times) means “not to be transferred to another.” The assumption is that rights are the innate possession of the people. The purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them.

By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says:

"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law."

I repeat: If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.” In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it.

Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth – not except as determined by law, but no law. The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes.
Good read, thanks.