Can an unarmed population prevent a tyranny? If you think so, tell me how.

Originally posted by michael1983l
In answer to the question asked in the title alone, then all a population needs to do, is down tools and refuse to work. If enough people did that, the government would fall within days.

Why did that not work in Syria?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by Alfie1

 

The trouble, it seems to me, with any of this armed resistance to tyranny stuff is who decides what's tyranny and what isn't.

One man's tyranny could be another man's just right policy. What mandate has any armed mob got without consulting the electors ?

Please go ahead and answer your own question, who decides what's tyranny? - And: Who should?

So long as the electoral system is still functioning I cannot see how any faction can legitimately claim to be representing the people against the government.

If all elections were cancelled that is a different story but, otherwise, if people aren't happy with their elected oifficials they just don't vote for them. And how about standing for office themselves ?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Because it hasn't been tried in Syria. Despite what you see on the news, most Syrians are carrying on with their lives as normal as possible and it is only pockets of resistance that is causing their government problems.

Originally posted by MrSpad
If the tyranny is truly a tyranny with the backing of the military and unarmed population has no more or less chance than a armed population does. However on a global stage we have seen unarmed populations take down several dictator style governments as of late because those regimes were afraid of outside intervention. When in places like Libyia and Syria they did start shooting populartions who were not armed they saw both the rebellion of their militaries and also quick intervetion from outside parties who armed, trained and supported the one time unarmed population. In the case of an armed population so long as the popultion did not start the shooting then the same course as with and unarmed population can occure. Of course an armed population like the US would have to re-armed, trained and supported becuase of rabble of people with guns is not threat to any gov who has military backing.

Well, the US is the main party of the UN. How can they intervene in the event of a tyranny in the US? If they cannot do it in Syria...

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

Do you genuinely think that Obama sits at the head of a tyrannical government? Compared to the genuine meaning of that word and the situations that have constituted tyrannies in the past? There is just no comparison.

You are correct, with a qualifier. IMO, most rational people are not claiming that he is a tyrannt now, only that his current actions and past comments, 1) enable him, 2) suggest, to a small or mid-sized degree, that he may try to gain excessive power.

Even if he does not, in 4 years there will be somebody else, possibly a Republican, who will then have so much more power than Bush had when he took office. If the trend continues, to me it is clear, that we are headed towards a tyranny.

So far the comments have not suggested that we could stop it if we needed to.

How can we prevent a malevolent tyranny if We The People have no arms/weapons?

There is only one Saviour, and that is Jesus Christ.

Collectively, we are a nation of thieves who now have thieves as leaders.
We are a nation of baby killers who have leaders that murder.
We are a nation who loves greed who have leaders that are greedy.
We are a nation who loves money who have leaders who take bribes.
We are a nation that thinks nothing of lying who have leaders who lie.

And yet, the last thing that many want to do is see our reflection in the mirror. We don't want to consider that, just as in the days of Judea, our "teachers and leaders" have made their converts twice the children of hell in order to have rule and authority over the crowds.

And he shall bring on them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yes, the LORD our God shall cut them off. Psalm 93:24

We reap what we sow. As we abandon charity, we abandon loving our neighbour as ourselves.
And so do our leaders.

Tyranny would stop if all took stock of themselves then looked at their leaders. The problem is, they defined evil as good and now we do evil believing it's good. We've made friends with it, and as such many hate God's good as evil, and in many cases we love the darkness more than the light and truth. Breaking the cycle is through prayer, repentance and changing our course. The leaders cannot stand as all authority is appointed by the God of Heaven and Earth - to either bless or .....

It's our own inequity brought back on our own heads. Evil and wickedness reap death, not life.

They did in India. (Gandhi)

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

Do you genuinely think that Obama sits at the head of a tyrannical government? Compared to the genuine meaning of that word and the situations that have constituted tyrannies in the past? There is just no comparison.

You are correct, with a qualifier. IMO, most rational people are not claiming that he is a tyrannt now, only that his current actions and past comments, 1) enable him, 2) suggest, to a small or mid-sized degree, that he may try to gain excessive power.

Even if he does not, in 4 years there will be somebody else, possibly a Republican, who will then have so much more power than Bush had when he took office. If the trend continues, to me it is clear, that we are headed towards a tyranny.

So far the comments have not suggested that we could stop it if we needed to.

Why would Obama, or any other elected official come to that, be immune from impeachment if they went rogue ?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


I can't see anything that Obama has done that is more pernicious than the Patriot Act. But admittedly I don't follow the US that closely.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


I am not a religious man. But this certainly rang true for me. Our nation's current state of being is a direct reflection of what we are willing to tolerate in our own lives.

Values are long gone. Whether religious or secular, the abandonment of those values has lead to a moral relativism that is poisoning our ability to determine what is and is not right.

In other words "nothing is sacred anymore" and as such, nothing is spared the consequences.

Easy.

You quit paying taxes and fighting their wars.

reply to post by projectvxn


I think you're correct that nothing is sacred, and that most people seem to be having difficulty operating well under a morally relativistic culture.

Some people can use moral relativism wisely, however. It seems others are having a very sharp learning curve.

Look around, and you see the price we have to pay for this mindset. What I don't think you see is how much advancement has come out of this more open mindset at the same time. That one is harder to see so easily.

It's the easiest thing in the world to figure out. The gov. Needs people to rule. If the people refuse to follow the rules. the gov. only has 2 options sacrifice people or change. If the people are really about taking control. Sacrifices won't matter.

Why?

Because if the gov. is forced to believe it has to kill all it's people. Whose going to run the manufacturing industries and what not? Not the rich!

So the gov. would be forced to it's knees. But do you think people can really be that mentally tough? I don't!

reply to post by unityemissions


Open minds of true depth do not need to abandon morality to make advancements in life. For whatever progress can come of it will soon be overshadowed by the destruction caused by the morally bankrupt.

reply to post by projectvxn


So you are equating moral relativism to moral bankruptancy I'm not following you, bro.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So you are equating moral relativism to moral bankruptancy

I'm not following you, bro.

Moral relativism is not what you seem to think it is.

It is the thought process of human action being equal to other human actions regardless of consequences. The "if it feels good, do it" methodology of moral thought.

It will lead to moral bankruptcy because it is the seed of it.

reply to post by projectvxn


I can see how someone may end up thinking this, but it's simply not the case.

Moral Relativism

In it's broadest sense, moral relativism is the understanding that morals are not absolute, and are dependent on our cultural, and familial conditioning.

Now that "god is dead", people are having to reason for their selves. Due to a lack of critical thinking, and raw selfishness, people are taking moral relativism to it's extreme. That is more in line with nihilism.

Any extreme is likely to give bad consequences. The same can be seen in moral absolutism taken to the extreme. That's basically just fanaticism.

What moral relativism may provide is a deeper understanding and empathy for people who operate under different moral structures. It can lead to a more layered, or meta perspective. It works well for some minds. Others need more concrete, black and white thinking.

I posit that it may be your mind simply requires this concrete thinking to work well. All good. It seems you may believe that in your self, if you didn't have this structure, you couldn't have any morality, so then project this belief onto the whole of people.

I think this projection isn't all too far off, as it seems evidenced that most people can't handle it, and their moral structure does seem to break down almost entirely.

oh by voting of course.. pfft why do you need a gun when you can vote in people who will make things better.. that is why things are so good now days right? Its not like politicians can say one thing and do another, whatever they say while trying to be elected they always follow through with!

/sarcasm off

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
How can we prevent a malevolent tyranny if We The People have no arms/weapons? Will the Democratic Party (which widely supports gun control) never elect in its Primary a Presidential candidate who will later abuse his/her power to become dictator or tyrannt? How can we look into the future to know this? Are democratic elections sufficient to prevent a tyranny? If somebody from another party gets elected and becomes tyrannical, how will the Democratic Party restore a constitutional government?

You are asking the wrong question - it should be can an armed population take on the might of the US armed forces ? Do they want to ?
The answer is NO.

Originally posted by SpearMint
I don't think an armed one could either, I think that would only prolong it and result in more deaths. The question is: Is there a need to do so? I think not. In this day and age I just don't think such a thing would happen, there's a lot of unnecessary paranoia.

About defining tyranny, it would have to be something like mass murder or marshal law to warrant firearms.

edit on 1-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Genocides typically do not end in uprisings. They tend to end poorly, but it is a constant circling the drain when you get to that point.

What gets people riled, historically, is money/resources. Killing your neighbor? Doesn't matter. Killing you and your children? Now we're talking! That is something that will spur you to action, make you willing to fight.

Wars are about money, not lives. Even when they are revolutions.