Spideynw: Stranger: Spideynw:They didn't kill Gandhi and his followers, I doubt they would kill us. They had run out of guns at the time. You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill us.
Stranger: Spideynw:They didn't kill Gandhi and his followers, I doubt they would kill us. They had run out of guns at the time.
Spideynw:They didn't kill Gandhi and his followers, I doubt they would kill us.
They had run out of guns at the time.
You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill us.
Ever heard of the Civil War?
Snowflake: Spideynw:So? Do you have an answer? Aggression
Spideynw:So? Do you have an answer?
How can they use aggression to force anyone to go to war?
Snowflake: Spideynw:I never said the government would not be aggressive. Just that the state would not kill you. Difference of degrees
Spideynw:I never said the government would not be aggressive. Just that the state would not kill you.
No, there are no degrees of difference between being alive or dead. Either you are alive, or you are dead. Huge difference.
Snowflake: Spideynw:Again, my point is only that the government would not start killing people over it. My point is they will use aggression, which may or may not include killing people. I bet if you didn't pay your taxes in nazi germany and told them you were a libertarian you would ahh... not be too healthy in the days to come.
Spideynw:Again, my point is only that the government would not start killing people over it.
If 5% of the population stopped paying taxes, the government might incarcerate all of them. In which case the government would go broke feeding, housing, and prosecuting all of them. That is the point.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Pablo: Spideynw: Stranger: Spideynw:They didn't kill Gandhi and his followers, I doubt they would kill us. They had run out of guns at the time. You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill us. Ever heard of the Civil War?
Yes and that has to do with non-cooperation how?
Spideynw:If 5% of the population stopped paying taxes, the government might incarcerate all of them. In which case the government would go broke feeding, housing, and prosecuting all of them. That is the point.
The government's already going broke. That hasn't even slowed them down.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Libertarian_for_Life:Ok so, most people here believe the violent revolution will not work?
It won't work.
Someone needs to come up with a way to have competition in 'states'/choosing your own government/something that uses the term government but is a voluntary entity so that we can eliminate the atrocities of the "involuntary government" (I know it sounds redundant, but I'm making a point).
Stranger: Spideynw:If 5% of the population stopped paying taxes, the government might incarcerate all of them. In which case the government would go broke feeding, housing, and prosecuting all of them. That is the point. The government's already going broke. That hasn't even slowed them down.
Which government? There have already been a few city governments that have declared bankruptcy. Also, I don't think you are considering how enormous the cost would be to imprison 5% of the population, not only monetarily, but public relations and stress costs as well. When I say stress, I mean for those that have to incarcerate these people, how stressful it would be for them.
States are overthrown everyday with the help of outsiders who sympahize with the 'evil' that seems to overwhelm the populace. Are you asking if revolution is immoral?
5% revolts and the U.S. would send the national guard. If the revolt was peaceful despite instigations for it to be otherwise, then the government would first arrest the leaders of the movement to isolate the others. They would then use the common strategy used by the state: assimilate, remove or exterminate. If 5% of the populace revolts, then the state has the motivation to tax the other 95% to incarcerate or send them elsewhere. Worst case scenario is a bullet to the head, the most economical method for the state. This doesn't have to be public nor does it need to occur at once. People have a tendancy of "disappearing", even in the U.S. The degree to which the state cares to take it depends on how well they justify their decision. While we like to think Americans are better, in the face of brutal state force they will do what their masters tell them. You'd probably even have people celebrating that the Government has finally taken care of those evil capitalists.
K.C. Farmer: If the revolt was peaceful despite instigations for it to be otherwise, then the government would first arrest the leaders of the movement to isolate the others. They would then use the common strategy used by the state: assimilate, remove or exterminate.
That did not happen to Gandhi or the civil rights movement.
K.C. Farmer:If 5% of the populace revolts, then the state has the motivation to tax the other 95% to incarcerate or send them elsewhere.
No it doesn't. It would be sending its own family, friends, and family of friends elsewhere or to prison.
K.C. Farmer:Worst case scenario is a bullet to the head, the most economical method for the state.
And most damaging to the state's legitimacy. They would not choose this option.
K.C. Farmer:This doesn't have to be public nor does it need to occur at once.
Exterminating 5% of the population need not be public?
K.C. Farmer:People have a tendancy of "disappearing", even in the U.S.
Individuals, not millions of people.
K.C. Farmer:While we like to think Americans are better, in the face of brutal state force they will do what their masters tell them.
If 5% of the population decided to stop obeying the government, I would guess they would understand the risk they were taking.
K.C. Farmer:You'd probably even have people celebrating that the Government has finally taken care of those evil capitalists.
Yeah, because people like to watch family and friends suffer right?
Spideynw:How can they use aggression to force anyone to go to war?
Spideynw:No, there are no degrees of difference between being alive or dead. Either you are alive, or you are dead. Huge difference.
Libertarian_for_Life: Giant_Joe: Spideynw: You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill them. Convince a large part of the other 95% that they are cultists, or vandals, or the bourgeois, or parasites on the society, and it'll be pretty easy to get them all killed. You really think they could do that? I suppose it's not substantially unreasonable, but I still believe that some sense would be knocked into at least a large minority of the people. I don't know, perhaps the stupidity of the average American mind has no limits, maybe you are right.
Giant_Joe: Spideynw: You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill them. Convince a large part of the other 95% that they are cultists, or vandals, or the bourgeois, or parasites on the society, and it'll be pretty easy to get them all killed.
Spideynw: You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill them.
You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill them.
Convince a large part of the other 95% that they are cultists, or vandals, or the bourgeois, or parasites on the society, and it'll be pretty easy to get them all killed.
You really think they could do that? I suppose it's not substantially unreasonable, but I still believe that some sense would be knocked into at least a large minority of the people.
I don't know, perhaps the stupidity of the average American mind has no limits, maybe you are right.
Look at the USSR. Its almost impossible to figure out how many people the killed in the revolution, from police executions, and from working them to death in siberian work camps. And the conditions in which the forced many of the people in was just a slow death anyway. There are more ways to kill people then by shooting them.
Secondly, on the topic of overthrowl; if a government has no respect for the rights of its people, or in other words, it steals from them, unjustifiably imprisonens them, and murders them, that country is effectually an outlaw, and has given full justification to any people to act against it. A collection of outlaws is no different then a single outlaw. Men do not gain rights by joining in a group. That which is permittable to an individual is permittable to a group of them, and only that.
"Thats no law, thats just a sword. Happens I got one too"
Snowflake: Spideynw:How can they use aggression to force anyone to go to war? They do it all the time.
You did not answer my question. How is me threatening you to go to jail forcing you to do anything? You can still refuse. Humans are not robots.
Snowflake: Spideynw:No, there are no degrees of difference between being alive or dead. Either you are alive, or you are dead. Huge difference. Tell that to unlawful combatants in torture camps.
And that changes reality how?
Snowflake: Spideynw:If 5% of the population stopped paying taxes, the government might incarcerate all of them. In which case the government would go broke feeding, housing, and prosecuting all of them. That is the point. Or the government could be less retarded and slowly act against them.
Slowly? As in what, ten years? Or slowly as in just a few of them? Let's see, if 15 million people stopped paying taxes, and only a couple of thousand got prosecuted, why would people keep paying taxes if there is such a low risk for not paying taxes? That is why the government would not "be less retartded" and slowly act.
Snowflake:Salami theory: disprove it. All your assertions are based on the idea that government can't aggress all out against 5% of the population. I'm saying they could and have done it slowly. Derp.
No, I am saying the government would not kill the 5% that disobeys. I never said they would not take action against them. The government could very well try to imprison all of them, and go broke trying to do it.
Regardless, you are saying they could and have done it slowly. When and how?
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer: If the revolt was peaceful despite instigations for it to be otherwise, then the government would first arrest the leaders of the movement to isolate the others. They would then use the common strategy used by the state: assimilate, remove or exterminate. That did not happen to Gandhi or the civil rights movement.
So are you asserting that neither Gandhi nor American civil rights leaders were imprisoned by the state? That's not even counting state-sponsored slavery, human experimentation during the 20th century and the destructive policies of the wellfare state.
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:If 5% of the populace revolts, then the state has the motivation to tax the other 95% to incarcerate or send them elsewhere. No it doesn't. It would be sending its own family, friends, and family of friends elsewhere or to prison.
When it comes to state action, family and friends are secondary to individual survival. A state motivated enough to imprison 5% of the population would not let associations such as family or friends stand in their way. In addition, individuals under a brutal enough regime will indeed turn against friends and family to protection themselves. It's also based upon the way the state chooses to frame their objectives - which can range from getting rid of the criminal element (as they define criminal) to "re-education". The bloodiest American war was started over session, and involved families and friends on both sides killing one another (the South opted for secession at first through nonviolence, then fired at Union ships trying to enter their territory).
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:Worst case scenario is a bullet to the head, the most economical method for the state. And most damaging to the state's legitimacy. They would not choose this option.
You assume that at your own peril. You're attributing individual morality to an entity such as the state. The state has no legitimacy to damage. The state's existence creates moral hazards, so it is no surprise why the most brutal acts are committed under such regimes. In addition, if there are clear signs of a philosophy with genocidal tendancies (i.e., Socialism), then how can you ignore the threat?
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:This doesn't have to be public nor does it need to occur at once. Exterminating 5% of the population need not be public?
Done over time, in the right conditions, yes - at least without public knowledge.
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:People have a tendancy of "disappearing", even in the U.S. Individuals, not millions of people.
Context is that you have a brutal regime willing to utilize extermination. The most effective means would be to target individuals for execution, i.e., making them "disappear". The next step would be to round up groups of people - people the state calls "criminals".
But I'll go one step beyond that. The U.S. Government has (high probability) or is close to having (a given) the means to kill human beings discriminantly via the use of biological weapons. The ability to target individuals, groups (such as racial groups), and other genetically defined people is a weapon the State desires because it provides the ability to kill with even greater plausible deniability than military or police force or any of the commonly used methods of a brutal regime in the past. All that would be needed would be a sample of genetic material, which can be gathered in almost any way imaginable. Blame could be passed to almost anyone - terrorists, left-wing/right-wing extremists, even those the state intends to target. We are either at the point, or very close to the point, where all that is necessary is the will to commit atrocities. The killing could also be performed painlessly, so as to cause those with the intent of murdering millions to feel a little better about their decisions. So yes, millions of people could "disappear" from the face of the earth in a matter of time if the State is willing to do it. They can then come in with the "cure" and reinforce their so-called legitimacy.
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:While we like to think Americans are better, in the face of brutal state force they will do what their masters tell them. If 5% of the population decided to stop obeying the government, I would guess they would understand the risk they were taking.
I'm speaking of the other 95% who will either do nothing or even assist in the crackdown against the 5%. I would love to think that Americans would react differently, the history of human experience says otherwise.
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:You'd probably even have people celebrating that the Government has finally taken care of those evil capitalists. Yeah, because people like to watch family and friends suffer right?
No, because 20% of the American population actually believes in the BS being preached by Socialists/Communists (based on a 2009 Rasmussen Reports poll) - those under 30 (the age most willing to act on that believe system) are in the 33% range. Even more have been convinced that free market principles are the cause of the current political/economic crisis. These people will celebrate the imprisonment or even death of people they consider as being in the way of their progressive society. If it were a conservative movement, then they too would celebrate the imprisonment or death of people who stand in the way of their version of liberty (I mean we bomb the hell out of countries and kill people, and the folks back home are celebrating). Sorry, I admire your faith in the American people, but I see more than just a small minority that would resort to aggression against your 5%.
K.C. Farmer:5% revolts and the U.S. would send the national guard. If the revolt was peaceful despite instigations for it to be otherwise, then the government would first arrest the leaders of the movement to isolate the others. They would then use the common strategy used by the state: assimilate, remove or exterminate.
I don't believe this happened with either Gandhi's movement or the civil rights movement (the bolded part).
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:LS seemed to argue against it, but in that case shouldn't we just go home and join the army, respect government etc.?
This is not quite correct. You said it was correct AND good for the US of A to murder Saddam Hussein, because you claimed that they had the moral authority to act for victims. You have not been able to identify who enabled the US or by what authority that should lead to Saddam's murder.
So this is a completely different example that doesn't match up with the explanations you offered in the other thread.
Still, the same core question persists. By what moral authority, can you act as my agent, and commit murder in my name?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Let's say somebody from the outside has the means to overthrow it without endangering innocents.
And while this is an interesting mind puzzle, it is not any reflection of reality. Even if 100% of the people in Iraq empowered America to remove Saddam, they would still need 100% of American tax payers to support it as well.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Would you find it morally correct for him to act on it? I would say yes, if he's right.
Would it be morally correct for him to not act on it?
Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:5% revolts and the U.S. would send the national guard. If the revolt was peaceful despite instigations for it to be otherwise, then the government would first arrest the leaders of the movement to isolate the others. They would then use the common strategy used by the state: assimilate, remove or exterminate. I don't believe this happened with either Gandhi's movement or the civil rights movement (the bolded part).
Gandhi's movement was slightly different in that they had a foreign power. I had mentioned this earlier.
The use of the American Civil Rights movement really depends on where you choose to start. The American Civil Rights movement started about the time slavery was introduced in America. Bacon's rebellion could be considered the first major conflict that involved a serious challenge to slavery. So there are around 300+ years involved with that movement. The movement had both violent and nonviolent aspects to it, and to assert that the state did not use the methods of assimilation, removal or extermination against those who refused to be slaves or support slavery is simply ignoring the facts. Even if you only consider the 1950's and 1960's, to say that the state (through its lower levels) did not resort to force, including outright murder, also assumes a denial of the facts. But then the 1960's civil rights movement was about political rights within a state and not a movement for independence from a state. To me that's a significant difference that makes the application of the American Civil Rights movement a bad choice for comparison for the topic in question - the overthrowing of a state.
Spideynw:You did not answer my question. How is me threatening you to go to jail forcing you to do anything? You can still refuse. Humans are not robots.
Spideynw:Slowly? As in what, ten years? Or slowly as in just a few of them? Let's see, if 15 million people stopped paying taxes, and only a couple of thousand got prosecuted, why would people keep paying taxes if there is such a low risk for not paying taxes? That is why the government would not "be less retartded" and slowly act.
Spideynw:No, I am saying the government would not kill the 5% that disobeys. I never said they would not take action against them. The government could very well try to imprison all of them, and go broke trying to do it.
Spideynw:Regardless, you are saying they could and have done it slowly. When and how?
All I'm saying is that government is really good at oppressing us and getting away with it if it is done gradually... Don't you agree? Can't you look around and see your civil and economic liberties slowly slipping away with everyone's approval? If we went from 1776 to 2009 government in 10 years, people would revolt. I think this is the scenario you are imagining. Governments are smarter than this.
K.C. Farmer:When it comes to state action, family and friends are secondary to individual survival. A state motivated enough to imprison 5% of the population would not let associations such as family or friends stand in their way. In addition, individuals under a brutal enough regime will indeed turn against friends and family to protection themselves. It's also based upon the way the state chooses to frame their objectives - which can range from getting rid of the criminal element (as they define criminal) to "re-education".
Any evidence of this occurring during civil disobedience?
K.C. Farmer:You assume that at your own peril. You're attributing individual morality to an entity such as the state. The state has no legitimacy to damage. The state's existence creates moral hazards, so it is no surprise why the most brutal acts are committed under such regimes. In addition, if there are clear signs of a philosophy with genocidal tendancies (i.e., Socialism), then how can you ignore the threat?
Because there is no evidence of the state being that brutal to people committing civil disobedience.
K.C. Farmer: Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:This doesn't have to be public nor does it need to occur at once. Exterminating 5% of the population need not be public? Done over time, in the right conditions, yes - at least without public knowledge.
Done over time? Like what, 50 years? If it takes that long, then the government will be long gone before they get around to killing 15 million people. And if people don't know the government is doing it, why would they fear the government? If they do know, why would they not be outraged at cold blooded murder of 15 million people? And when in history has an industrialized nation mass-murdered massive amounts of people committing civil disobedience? Give me a break.
K.C. Farmer: Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:People have a tendancy of "disappearing", even in the U.S. Individuals, not millions of people. Context is that you have a brutal regime willing to utilize extermination.
Context is that you have a brutal regime willing to utilize extermination.
I am talking about industrialized countries, not third world African countries.
K.C. Farmer:But I'll go one step beyond that. The U.S. Government has (high probability) or is close to having (a given) the means to kill human beings discriminantly via the use of biological weapons. The ability to target individuals, groups (such as racial groups), and other genetically defined people is a weapon the State desires because it provides the ability to kill with even greater plausible deniability than military or police force or any of the commonly used methods of a brutal regime in the past. All that would be needed would be a sample of genetic material, which can be gathered in almost any way imaginable. Blame could be passed to almost anyone - terrorists, left-wing/right-wing extremists, even those the state intends to target. We are either at the point, or very close to the point, where all that is necessary is the will to commit atrocities. The killing could also be performed painlessly, so as to cause those with the intent of murdering millions to feel a little better about their decisions. So yes, millions of people could "disappear" from the face of the earth in a matter of time if the State is willing to do it. They can then come in with the "cure" and reinforce their so-called legitimacy.
A little paranoid are we? Give me a break.
K.C. Farmer:I'm speaking of the other 95% who will either do nothing or even assist in the crackdown against the 5%. I would love to think that Americans would react differently, the history of human experience says otherwise.
For example?
K.C. Farmer: Spideynw: K.C. Farmer:You'd probably even have people celebrating that the Government has finally taken care of those evil capitalists. Yeah, because people like to watch family and friends suffer right? No, because 20% of the American population actually believes in the BS being preached by Socialists/Communists (based on a 2009 Rasmussen Reports poll) - those under 30 (the age most willing to act on that believe system) are in the 33% range. Even more have been convinced that free market principles are the cause of the current political/economic crisis. These people will celebrate the imprisonment or even death of people they consider as being in the way of their progressive society. If it were a conservative movement, then they too would celebrate the imprisonment or death of people who stand in the way of their version of liberty (I mean we bomb the hell out of countries and kill people, and the folks back home are celebrating). Sorry, I admire your faith in the American people, but I see more than just a small minority that would resort to aggression against your 5%.
I never said the government would not use aggression, I said the government would not resort to murdering that large of a portion of the population. Government employees, for the most part, are not murderers.
Snowflake: Spideynw:You did not answer my question. How is me threatening you to go to jail forcing you to do anything? You can still refuse. Humans are not robots. There is a 99.99% chance that if threaten to kill you, you will choose to serve the state instead.
And there is only a .01% chance the government will threaten to kill you for disobeying.
Snowflake:Im not saying its impossible to overthrow the state, im saying that a government could deal with 5% non-cooperation.
And I would like to know how you think the government could deal with it?
Snowflake:Well, I bet they could the prisons wouldn't be as ritzy as they are now.
And I bet the family and friends of those that are disobeying would not stand for the government treating them that way...
Snowflake: Spideynw:Regardless, you are saying they could and have done it slowly. When and how? See all tyrannical governments surpressing dissenters
When has a government ever been able to suppress large groups of people engaging in civil disobedience?
Snowflake:All I'm saying is that government is really good at oppressing us and getting away with it if it is done gradually... Don't you agree?
And all I am saying is that government is really bad at suppressing civil disobedience, if done in large numbers.
Spideynw:Government employees, for the most part, are not murderers.
In the absence of consent, the only tool the government has is force. Whether or not secretaries and burearcrats will arm themselves with billy clubs and riot gear is not the point.
States have murdered 10s of millions of people in the 20th century alone. They have deployed chemical weapons, set up camps to commit genocide, advanced agendas of eugenics through the social welfare and education systems, and used nuclear weapons on civilian populations.
The state isn't dangerous because of who works for it. The state is dangerous because its rationale for existence is predicated on no moral inhibitions.
liberty student:States have murdered 10s of millions of people in the 20th century alone.
True, but these people were not committing civil disobedience. When has the government been able to defend itself against civil disobedience? I only know of twice in history when it was used, Gandhi's civil disobedience and the civil rights civil disobedience, and both times it was successful. The government had to give in to the demands.
liberty student:They have deployed chemical weapons,
Against those using armed resistance.
liberty student:set up camps to commit genocide,
Against an ethnic group that cooperated.
liberty student:advanced agendas of eugenics through the social welfare and education systems,
I don't see how this is relevant to civil disobedience.
liberty student:and used nuclear weapons on civilian populations.
That were supporting a government using armed resistance.
liberty student:The state isn't dangerous because of who works for it. The state is dangerous because its rationale for existence is predicated on no moral inhibitions.
It is also predicated on popular support, which is why the government would never mass murder its own population.
Spideynw:When has the government been able to defend itself against civil disobedience?
Syria had Hama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
on the other hand, maybe doesn't fit your civil disobediance tag perfectly, it only shows that a state was willing to kill 100s of civilians for every armed enemy it felt lived within the town.
There Tiananmen square, and Kent State shootings, etc. etc.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Spideynw:It is also predicated on popular support, which is why the government would never mass murder its own population.
When the state loses support, it has nothing left to lose. That is when the mass exterminations begin.
There is no safety in numbers no matter what arbitrary percentages you advance.
nirgrahamUK: Spideynw:When has the government been able to defend itself against civil disobedience? Syria had Hama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre on the other hand, maybe doesn't fit your civil disobediance tag perfectly,
on the other hand, maybe doesn't fit your civil disobediance tag perfectly,
It was not civil disobedience, so it does not fit at all.
nirgrahamUK:There Tiananmen square,
Was even 1% of the population involved?
nirgrahamUK:Kent State shootings, etc. etc.
Again, this was not even 1% of the population that was involved, it was a tiny fraction. This is why I say it may take up to 5% of the population. However, look at the response of the population to it in the article. Four deaths sparked 4 million to protest. Imagine what would happen if the government tried to kill even a few thousand of 15 million disobedient.
liberty student: Spideynw:It is also predicated on popular support, which is why the government would never mass murder its own population. When the state loses support, it has nothing left to lose. That is when the mass exterminations begin.
Do you have any examples of this occurring during mass civil disobedience?
Spideynw:Any evidence of this occurring during civil disobedience?
Seems I could write several books to question or refute your assertion that at most all it takes is 5% to bring down a government - an assertion I still don't see any evidence of being true - and still not satisfy you or answer all of your side questions. Of course no one would buy those books primarily because I don't think they buy your assertion.
Can 5% bring down a government? I don't really disagree with that possibility, but is the statement sufficient? You seem to believe the state won't respond with aggression - specifically imprisonment or in the worst case scenario, murder. I'm all for nonviolent means of overthrowing a state, but I just don't share your optimism in the response of the state. I'll just say that the percentage required to bring down a state without the use of aggression is directly proportional to the willingness of that state to utilize aggression. That percentage may be above 5%. In some instances, perhaps extremely rare, nonviolence may not even be an option.
Please share with us the acts of civil disobedience involving the successful overthrown of a government that have lead you to your assertion. You've already cited Gandhi's nonviolence movement in India, but I believe the number of participants exceeds your 5% figure. It's also not quite clear whether the Quit India movement caused the British to abandon their hold on India or whether they simply weren't in position to do so after WWII. Other British territories were also given independence in the process. I'd say that the Quit India movement had great influence on Britain's decision, but was not the sole reason for Indian independence. Perhaps over time that may have played out anyway, but there's no way we can make any assumptions about that one way or the other.
Spideynw:When has the government been able to defend itself against civil disobedience? I only know of twice in history when it was used, Gandhi's civil disobedience and the civil rights civil disobedience, and both times it was successful. The government had to give in to the demands.
So you have two instances that you know of to support your assertion that at most it takes 5% to overthrow a government? One of these didn't even relate to government overthrow (occurring over a span of 300 years to boot, including a civil war) and the other involved more than 5% of the population. That's not to mention the fact that in both instances the respective government did indeed use force including imprisonment and death. The one instance that did involve the independence of a people from a government wasn't even a conclusive situation - that the civil disobedience was the sole cause of the overthrow.
Now that I think about it, I believe much more than 5% of the American population already did refuse the authority of their government in the past. We all know how Lincoln (the master manipulator) turned that one around and made it look like the South were the bad guys. All the South wanted was to leave peacefully and they even offered to buy all current federal ground in the South and offered to take their share of the national debt, but somehow Lincoln still made the Union look the good guys and justified the killing of 620,000 Americans to the public in order to "save the Union".
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
Libertarian_for_Life:Now that I think about it, I believe much more than 5% of the American population already did refuse the authority of their government in the past. We all know how Lincoln (the master manipulator) turned that one around and made it look like the South were the bad guys.
Bingo. I was waiting for someone to point this one out.
liberty student: Libertarian_for_Life:Now that I think about it, I believe much more than 5% of the American population already did refuse the authority of their government in the past. We all know how Lincoln (the master manipulator) turned that one around and made it look like the South were the bad guys. Bingo. I was waiting for someone to point this one out.
Libertarian_for_Life:Now that I think about it, I believe much more than 5% of the American population already did refuse the authority of their government in the past. We all know how Lincoln (the master manipulator) turned that one around and made it look like the South were the bad guys. All the South wanted was to leave peacefully and they even offered to buy all current federal ground in the South and offered to take their share of the national debt, but somehow Lincoln still made the Union look the good guys and justified the killing of 620,000 Americans to the public in order to "save the Union".
The American Civil War was my answer too, but then I was expecting another series of additional questions in attempt to refute the obvious and lead the conversation in a different direction (hence the books comment). I'm sure the detailed response is coming at any moment.
Two points of disagreement I have are:
1. That 5% is all that is required - I don't see the evidence.
2. That the state will not respond with aggression up to and including imprisonment and murder/genocide - position based on faith and speculation as opposed to history.
Other than that, nonviolent mass civil disobedience would appear to be an acceptable method for libertarians to overthrow a government.
K.C. Farmer: Spideynw:Any evidence of this occurring during civil disobedience? Seems I could write several books to question or refute your assertion that at most all it takes is 5% to bring down a government
Seems I could write several books to question or refute your assertion that at most all it takes is 5% to bring down a government
You could. What I am proposing is of course just conjecture. There is no real way to know for sure until it is tried. But I see no reason to believe it would not work. Nothing in the history of mankind suggests that it would not, from what I can tell.
K.C. Farmer:Please share with us the acts of civil disobedience involving the successful overthrown of a government that have lead you to your assertion. You've already cited Gandhi's nonviolence movement in India, but I believe the number of participants exceeds your 5% figure.
I believe it does as well. But in reality, as far as I know, that is the only time in history where civil disobedience was used to get rid of a government. And yes, there may have been other factors that helped as them as well, besides the civil disobedience.
But you all seem to be denying reality. 5% of the population is a huge portion of the population. One out of every twenty people. Look at the above scenario where the government killed four people. It enraged 4 million. Just imagine the government imprisoning 15 million non-violent people. The U.S. government has a hard enough time imprisoning 1.5 million people, mostly poor people. Now multiply that by 10 and add in there middle class and wealthy people! I mean come on. It just does not have the resources nor the will to do it.
K.C. Farmer:So you have two instances that you know of to support your assertion that at most it takes 5% to overthrow a government? One of these didn't even relate to government overthrow (occurring over a span of 300 years to boot, including a civil war) and the other involved more than 5% of the population. That's not to mention the fact that in both instances the respective government did indeed use force including imprisonment and death. The one instance that did involve the independence of a people from a government wasn't even a conclusive situation - that the civil disobedience was the sole cause of the overthrow.
The wealthiest country in the world has a hard time imprisoning .5% of its population, mostly poor. And you think it could easily imprison 5%, including a lot of middle class and wealthy?
Libertarian_for_Life: Now that I think about it, I believe much more than 5% of the American population already did refuse the authority of their government in the past. We all know how Lincoln (the master manipulator) turned that one around and made it look like the South were the bad guys. All the South wanted was to leave peacefully and they even offered to buy all current federal ground in the South and offered to take their share of the national debt, but somehow Lincoln still made the Union look the good guys and justified the killing of 620,000 Americans to the public in order to "save the Union".
That is because the South attacked the North. Again, using aggression against the state does not work. The only thing history has shown to work is non-violent, non-cooperation.
Spideynw: The U.S. government has a hard enough time imprisoning 1.5 million people, mostly poor people.
Spideynw:The U.S. government has a hard enough time imprisoning 1.5 million people, mostly poor people.
Snowflake: Spideynw: The U.S. government has a hard enough time imprisoning 1.5 million people, mostly poor people. evidence?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0608-05.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/19/5330
http://realcostofprisons.org/papers-finance.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490345,00.html
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/11/20/us_prisons_full_but_crime_cost_to_taxpayers_soar/
Snowflake: Spideynw:The U.S. government has a hard enough time imprisoning 1.5 million people, mostly poor people. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htmWhy should we buy your other empirical assertions when you can't even get google right?
"1,540,805 sentenced prisoners were under state or federal jurisdiction." I suppose this was the statistic I was thinking about.
"2,310,984 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails." I guess all the governments combined jail/imprison 2.3 million. But, I would guess, those in jails generally are not held in jail for even close to a year. The real question is, how many are incarcerated for at least a year?
Regardless, 5% of the population would still be ~7 times the current number of people jailed/imprisoned in a year. That is still a hell of a lot more than are currently in prison, and again, they are generally the poorest of the population.
Well, I was saying that your figure of 1.5 million is wrong too. Even check your own links.I think that the statistics you present are anecdotal and don't reflect the trend of steadily growing prison populations. Pardoning inmates due to overcrowding in this one jurisdiction in cali does not necessarily reflect the whole system.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06prison.html
Spideynw:Do you have any examples of 1%, let alone 5% of the population disobeying, and the government killing some of them in cold blood for disobeying, and admitting to the murders?
Why the arbitrary numbers? And why are you asking for an example in which government admits it kills its own citizens?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael