Subject:
|
Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Oct 2001 14:52:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
786 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper and Scott wrote:
> > I am sure overthrowing any government is illegal anywhere, whether you are
> > talking about Britain, or the former USSR, or whatever. Hence, revolution! Do
> > you know of the specific law anyway? Going against England in the revolution • was
> > illegal, technically, anyway, but I think the revolutionaries knew they were
> > being oppressed, they did not have freedom, and decided to "break the law".
> Overthrowing the government is high treason, it'll be there in your
> laws as well. [after the revolution]
> > > Therefore, you don't need legal guns to overthrow the government by
> > > violent means.
> If you were about to do a revolution, you obviously don'\t care much
> for the laws of the land.
This might sound silly, but it just occured to me as interesting that while we
have made it illegal to revolt, we have core rules that encourage revolution.
Jefferson certainly seems to have thought that periodic revolutions is a most
appropriate tool for keeping the government fresh.
Is it contradictory to enable revolutions while discouraging them? Are we
sending mixed signals? Or is it just another clever check and balance? And
how much does the stance of US citizens differ from those who are international
to us?
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) /s/5 day/7 day/g, and the same. (...) I know. (...) Bzzt. Benito was the fascist. Mr moustache and Mr Red were not fascists. (...) You're _completely_ missing the point. You think I'm equating illegal with bad. I don't necessarily. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
