Political Theory

Re: Hypothetical Question about Law

OntologicalQuandary — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:22:58 GMT

Hmm... I thought I said that if abolishment could be nonviolent then it would be redundant since a nonviolent abolition is a reformation, which is also listed...

who knows I am too lazy to reread my op, too much to do

Re: Hypothetical Question about Law

ama gi — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:50:19 GMT

OntologicalQuandary:
How can the people abolish the government without war?

You're smart. I'm sure you can think of something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolutions

Re: Hypothetical Question about Law

Stranger — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 01:33:20 GMT

OntologicalQuandary:

How can the people abolish the government without war? My first thought it through legal reformation, but wouldn't that just go under the "alter, or reform" part of the clause?

You can hold a referendum. The only problem is that the state will try to stop the referendum and it will have to be independently organized.

Re: Hypothetical Question about Law

DanielMuff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:57:57 GMT

Secession! No, wait. The South tried that and we saw what happened.

Re: Hypothetical Question about Law

MatthewWilliam — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:43:55 GMT

It is a paradox...good governance always requires confusion among thye subjugated. Constitutions help in having an imaginary element of voluntaryism in being governed.

Hypothetical Question about Law

OntologicalQuandary — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:36:12 GMT

This (at least at the moment heheh) is a purely hypothetical problem I am wondering about and just wanted some feedback. I know some here disagree with the idea of laws in the first place, as do I to an extent, but for the time being I just want to focus on the issue at hand, thanks.

So I am just reading the Texas Bill of Rights for fun and noticed that it says, as it does in the American Constitution, that the people have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the government as they deem fit.

However, later it talks about treason and says that people can only be tried for treason for aiding enemies or waging war against the state.

How can the people abolish the government without war? My first thought it through legal reformation, but wouldn't that just go under the "alter, or reform" part of the clause?

When I think of abolish I think of the American Revolution, in which the colonists waged war against the Brits, ABOLISHED the current government and made a new one.

In my opinion, abolishment implies violence, although now that I think about it, the government could be changed through a mass peaceful demonstration, but that seems unlikely.

I just want outside opinions on what I perceive to be a near paradox. Thanks