When is it justified to violently revolt against a political authority?

...

when the elite want it to happen.

stockholm syndrome itself has cucked countless potential revolutions in history

heck, blacks were slaves for 300 years despite outnumbering whites 10 to 1.

When things get boring and need a shake up

Whenever the government is weak and unpopular enough to be overthrown.

When its foundation or its actions are illegitimate.

What determines its legitimacy? If it's something you decide yourself, then you could have just wrote "whenever you want"

When they try to take away your guns.

When they become a threat to the lives of it's constituents.

t. Hobbes.

How famous is this guy becoming?
If things continue he will become the new president of turkey.

>what determines the legitimacy
The rights of man and the legal process.

When you see that the government is going against its own values.

He'd be better than the current one.

When you have enough might to win. Might makes Right. Don't let any delusional ideologue ever tell you anything else.

The rights of man are a joke which is told only when it's useful. Also
>the legal process
>violently revolt against a political authority
Pick one

When a polity breaks its own legal process, it is clearly no longer legitimate.
>the rights of man are a joke
Then why do you ask me when it's acceptable to revolt? If man has no rights, then he also lacks the right of revolution, so no answer I give is going to satisfy you and you should simply have stated that upfront.

/thread

When you've got enough guns to pull it off.

>When a polity breaks its own legal process, it is clearly no longer legitimate.

What do you do then when the people give the polity the right to do that? When they actively vote for a dictator knowing what they're doing?

>Turks
>Not black
Really KARAs my BOGA

Did you win? It's justified, end of story.

When your feelings are hurt

>What do you do then when the people give the polity the right to do that?
It is by definition impossible to give someone a right to go against the legal process, since going against the legal process means going outside the sphere of one's authority. But maybe you mean what happens when absolute authority is given. In such a case, rights are no longer legally protected, which means they are no longer guaranteed. That is enough to make the power illegitimate. No man has the right to make a slave of another.
>what if the authority was elected
In truth, I said nothing about popular sovereignty being legitimate.

>No man has the right to make a slave of another.
Unless the slaves give them that right

If the people willingly and knowingly gave someone absolute authority, then clearly it's irrelevant if the power is illegitimate because they want the people to have that illegitimate power.

>Unless the slaves give them that right
If the obedience depends on the will to obey, then the man cannot be a slave, for he can leave the relation.
>If the people willingly and knowingly gave someone absolute authority, then clearly it's irrelevant if the power is illegitimate because they want the people to have that illegitimate power.
That simply means that they are unlikely to revolt. It doesn't make the authority legitimate.

>It doesn't make the authority legitimate.
...which means that they retain the right of revolt.

>That simply means that they are unlikely to revolt. It doesn't make the authority legitimate.

Yeah but like I said, it makes the illegitimacy irrelevant. Who cares if it's not legitimate if the people are fine with it?

>It is by definition impossible to give someone a right to go against the legal process
But that implies the legal process is something set in stone that never changes. If it was the case, we'd still have slaves.

>Yeah but like I said, it makes the illegitimacy irrelevant. Who cares if it's not legitimate if the people are fine with it?
Legal theory. The question is whether the people have the right of revolt or they don't in the given case. The conclusion is that they do. Since they cannot guarantee that the order will be beneficial in every concievable situation, whether they retain that right remains a relevant question.
>But that implies the legal process is something set in stone that never changes. If it was the case, we'd still have slaves.
I have a feeling that you misunderstood me. The legal order denotes one's authorities and obligations. To breach either is to breach the legal order. To give someone a right to breach the legal order would mean to give them the authority to do what they don't have the authority to do. That is logically impossible since no thing can be simultaneously inside and outside one's authority. I mean, it could make sense if there was nothing outside of one's authority, if it was absolute. But then that's simply a case of no legal order existing. What doesn't exist cannot be breached.

I'm running a bit low on battery power, so, please, don't feel insulted if I drop out without warning.

See: Israel.

Palestinians are completely justified in resisting, and if they could do it more violently then they would. Like any oppressed group, I expect them to keep resisting. You would too in their shoes. Israel is not interested in negotiating in good faith. Israel keeps them down, literally. Israel also has much better weapons, it won the wars, and has some pretty strong protectors. I'd rather be an Israeli in Israel than a Palestinian in Palestine, for several good reasons, even though I think Israel is morally wrong here. Palestinians lack the might.

I'm not trying to make a bet on this dog fight, just pointing out that it's a clear case of might makes right.

>When is it justified to violently revolt against a political authority?
When you have enough of a force to win

>The legal order denotes one's authorities and obligations. To breach either is to breach the legal order. To give someone a right to breach the legal order would mean to give them the authority to do what they don't have the authority to do. That is logically impossible since no thing can be simultaneously inside and outside one's authority. I mean, it could make sense if there was nothing outside of one's authority, if it was absolute. But then that's simply a case of no legal order existing. What doesn't exist cannot be breached.

What if the system was designed from the ground up with absolute power in a leader's hands in mind? Where the nation was started with the idea of "The Emperor will always be the Emperor"

An interesting note, only once in all of Japan's history has the Emperor's right to be the ruler of Japan ever challenged, and the guy who did, did so under the pretense that he wanted to become Emperor of his own Japan (the eastern half). So it seems in more collectivist societies, rulers just stick around longer. People throughout Japan's history never killed to try and become Emperor outside of that one guy (Taira no Masakaado), they killed each other so their daughter had the right to marry the Emperor and thus her son would be the next Emperor.

Though it helps that the Emperor of Japan has never really had any real political power other than in the Meiji era, he was closer to a Pope.

When they fail to adhere to democratic principles and practices as established by law.

And

There is no legal way to force compliance with the law through an independent judiciary.

When both these conditions are met then violence (force) is no longer the monopoly of the state because of the ruling government illegitimacy and is returned to the people until they have satisfactorily established just and lawful government.

Only as much force as required and necessary to remove and reestablish account table government is proper. Burning down a house with a tyrants family inside is not proper when simply arresting the tyrant will do.

>When they fail to adhere to democratic principles and practices as established by law.
t. neo-liberal

t. filthy savage

>What if the system was designed from the ground up with absolute power in a leader's hands in mind? Where the nation was started with the idea of "The Emperor will always be the Emperor"
Then there is no real legal order, since the law is just the will of the Sovereign. Consequently, he can not breach it. But as I've said, the right to breach the legal order is a paradox.

Basically whenever you feel like it and get enough of your boiz together.

>muh plutocracy

>right to breach the legal order is a paradox.
Rights are not bound to any specific legal order. Legal systems are at best mere imperfect reflections of variously changeable impressions of the meaning of rights.

A persons rights are sovereign beyond and untouchable by any law. A law cannot bind or restrict or eliminate a persons rights, else that law is illegitimate, as is any political power or order based on such illegitimate law.

So in a way you are right. It is impossible to violate a law because of ones rights because a law that would be illegitimate and unenforceable.

So long as the ruling class does not violate the natural and enumerated rights of the polity, and does not violate the rule of law then there is no reason to be malcontent.

The masses have to determine for themselves if the law as written is an acceptable reflection of the rights they desire. It is also thier burden to hold the powerful accountable to the rule of law. If they do not, then the consequences that befall them are entirely thier own fault.

>The masses have to determine for themselves if the law as written is an acceptable reflection of the rights they desire. It is also thier burden to hold the powerful accountable to the rule of law. If they do not, then the consequences that befall them are entirely thier own fault.

>be plutocrats
>set up government
>claim it is the will of the people
>shit on everyone
>lol this is your own fault for wanting this in the first place
>autists will defend this online
kys my dude

You act as though the people have no power in anything, ever. When in reality they hold most of the power, most of the time. They usually lack the will to use that power it when necessary. This is a weakness and fear that manifest itself as rage from time to time. Such as you are doing now. That fear of exercising power creates the illusion of helplessness that fills you with rage. But it is not power you and your compatriot masses lack. It's the will to act. Your own fear is what keeps you down, not the plutocratic boogeyman. If you don't like the way things are run rise the fuck up and do something. Sitting around like a disaffected teeny bopper shitting on the rule of law because mom didn't let you go out with your friends is pathetic. The world and its systems are not stacked up against you or "the people" any more than you ir the people have let it get stacked by your fear to use your collective power. You are gonna blame the tiger for eating you when you lack the will to even lift a spear in your defense? Grow up. If people do not revolt against thier tyrants they hold the blame for their own suffering. The ability to make changes to ones environments to.suit ones needs and desires is a mark of intelligent life. Doing so in conditions of extreme adversity is among the most noble traits of mankind. You dint have any excuse. Revolt or shut the fuck up.

bout tree fiddy

Would you happen to be a rick and morty fan my good sir?

sic semper tyrannis

Obv. when authority loses Heaven's mandate.

Fuck off. The deal that gave Israel nationstatehood promised the same to the camel fuckers. All they had to do was recognize Israel's right to exist.

Couldn't do it. So fuck 'em.

This is the single most jewish post in this entire thread

Fuck off, Aguda

>Rights are not bound to any specific legal order. Legal systems are at best mere imperfect reflections of variously changeable impressions of the meaning of rights.
>A persons rights are sovereign beyond and untouchable by any law. A law cannot bind or restrict or eliminate a persons rights, else that law is illegitimate, as is any political power or order based on such illegitimate law.
You are, again, misinterpreting my post. "Right" is not used in the sense of "rights of citizens". It is used in the sense of "prerogative".
>So in a way you are right. It is impossible to violate a law because of ones rights because a law that would be illegitimate and unenforceable
That's not what I said. The Sovereign cannot breach the legal order because his authority is absolute and the law is just a reflection of his will, meaning that it is not binding to him.
The legal order is a collection of prerogatives and obligations. "In the situation x, the person y has the authority to decide z. In the situation a, the person b is obliged to do c." I am here not talking about the natural law. Since the natural law trumps law, it is possible for the people to have a right of revolt in certain cases. But that's not what we were talking about. This is probably what caused the confusion.
It is impossible for any position of authority to have a right of breaching the legal order because then they would have the authority over all which they do not have authority over, which is paradoxal. Moreover, it would mean that an illegal act (breaching the legal order) is simultaneously legal. That is paradoxal, as well.

>have mandate of heaven
>get deposed
>mandate of heaven passes to usurper at the exact moment of usurpation
10/10 system

This

Not quite. He's to prove it versus other parties gunning for the Mandate.

Sometimes Usurpers have to prove it VS. the dynasty their usurping, if it still has the power to challenger the Usurper. Such was the case when Wang Mang usurped the Han throne and founded the Xin dynasty, only for the son of the Emperor he was regent of to rise up and restore Han rule.

The only smooth transition from one dynasty to the next happened when Li Yuan led half of fucking China in revolt versus the Sui dynasty and established the Tang Dynasty uncontested. Such was the suckiness of the Sui.

This is why the Holohoax should've happened.

When ever you have the will to.