Why fight a geyser? If any of those things happened, as a citizen who disagrees with them you have two choices.
a. You can fight. If you do so by just complaining, the odds are nothing will change. If you fight with weapons it will almost certainly end with you personally being dead or in prison (and nothing changing).
b. You can leave. A lot of countries will take you, especially if you have an education. There are nice countries in Europe that take immigrants. You would need to learn the primary language - but that’s a heck of a lot easier than fighting the government to the inevitable outcome.
Sure there are a number of issues that I believe are worthy of going to war over. Our founding fathers fought for independence over such issues. Our Declaration of Independence lays out those reasons. When our liberty and freedoms are put at risk, physical overthrowing of the government is called for. Flags and names are the afterthought.
Vote, civil disobedience, or emigrating all seem like morally justified responses to this. I wouldn’t kill anyone for such reasons.
I fully support.
Let those who are against it vote against it, civilly disobey, or emigrate. If they decide to leave I won’t shed a tear.
I’m not loyal to any government, country, or organization. I am loyal only to my ethical standards and moral values. Those values prohibit me from engaging in violence for political reasons.
Violence is morally justifiable to protect yourself or others from physical harm. I see little use for it in any other situation- there may be exceptions but none come immediately to mind.
If the country is physically invaded, you can probably count on me to be there at the point of invasion resisting any ground forces. I am also satisfied that my government has fighting forces which can strike back against terrorist organizations and countries who engage in horrendous human rights violations. I’m not a pacifist, I see a use for violence. I just think that such uses are extremely rare.
Doubtful I’d be the leader of any such movement, or a member of any group in general. I may show support for a group’s actions, but I believe in the principle of speaking only for myself and not having any group speak for me or determine my actions or loyalties.
People are prone to act unethically or unjustly if they are part of a group which approves of unethical or unjust actions. I also would never subject myself to any authority such as a military organization when choosing whether or not to use deadly force, and as such, I would never be a soldier.
I realize this just applies to some of the above, but anything involving a Constitutional change would have been passed by 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress, and ratified by the legislatures in 38 states.
Against anything that’s got that much support, armed resistance would be futile, and would only succeed in getting a lot of people unnecessarily dead. In the wake of the passage of a genuinely awful Constitutional amendment, your moral choices would pretty much be to deal with it, or leave.
As far as I’m concerned, there are a number of states which are in a state of armed rebellion against the US government right now (including, tragically, my own), and could use a stern military intervention to force them into line.
The government raises the income tax rate to a sliding scale of 60-90%
A step too far in the right direction, unsustainable in the long run.
The Second Amendment is repealed and all civilian firearms are recalled after a 2-year grace period
I would disagree with the 2 year grace period.
Gay marriage becomes federally protected and all states are forced to recognize it
Damn good idea.
The First Amendment is changed such that Christianity is either prohibited in courts, currency, and schools OR it’s embraced as an official state religion
The first possiblility is the status quo, there is an official ceremonial deism but not Christianity in the public sector. The second possibility would be a grave mistake.
The energy sector becomes nationalized, coal plants and solar/wind sites are all eminent domained no matter who owned them before
I don’t have a problem with that.
A mandatory identification program is implemented nationwide, with public services, random checkpoints, schools, etc. all ordered to discover and forcibly deport every illegal immigrant
Upsetting and would make me fight for change and not revolt.
I could get behind a revolution if there was a return to Jim Crow, if abortion was outlawed, if freedom of the press and/or religion disappeared, or if Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann became president.
Don’t know about a flag. All the cool ideas have been taken. Maybe an open book with an atom on the cover or something like that. Or a big carrot with “WE” written above it.
I keep wondering about this in an abstract way. The gist of the problem for me is that the blue states so heavily subsidize the repressive thinking of the red states, and the US becomes a rightist world influence. I actually kind of like the idea of the US splitting into New New England and Jesusland. But I question whether my enthusiasm for this would survive a war like the Civil War.
Really. My state is an accomplice in the management of a drug cartel, as is at least one other, and several other states are currently or are attempting to nullify the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
For me, it would be some sort of breakdown of government whereby any of the above items happened outside the normal functioning of government. If those things happened due to constitutional amendments properly passed, Supreme Court decisions, or just normal everyday Congressional action, then I’m cool with them insofar as they’re not worth going to war over.
However, if any President or faction in Congress or whoever started circumventing the system, and forcing these things upon the states, I have a feeling that the states themselves would either ignore them, or if military force was brought to bear, fight back.
That doesn’t even consider the internal rifts in the military- they swear oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and obey lawful orders. I suspect a big portion would either fight on the side of of the Constitutionalists, or merely sit it out. The US military isn’t some third-world military where the top officers owe their positions to the man in charge; quite the opposite.
*The political system is reduced to ONE grand old Party.
*Only Party members get to vote or hold public office.
*Religion becomes mandatory and religious police rove the cities and towns to punish offenders for improper public activities, dress codes or for trying to attend school.
*Teachers and Professors are jailed for teaching Science that contradicts the official religious scrolls.
*Religion courts issue Missives, ordering the arrest or death of anyone deemed to have offended the faith of the official religious scrolls.
*Armed Para-military forces freely operate with impunity throughout the country, complete with training camps and military compounds.
*Secret Police and para-military corporations are allowed to spy with impunity on the general public through the collection and use of metadata for fun and profit.
*A wealthy merchant class attempts to create a new type of Feudalism to ensure 8% growth on their investments off of the backs of the “have-nots”.
*This new Nobility class attempts to maintain an iron fist on power through theft, deception, propaganda, and tax-avoidance…making them effectively above the law.
*The Nobility keep peons from objecting or organizing by constant use of satellite intel and drone strikes.
Nah… never happen…
“Armed rebellion” suggests they’re using force to keep the Feds from stopping them. The Federal gov’t isn’t trying to stop them, and indeed the DoJ has more or less given its approval to the state laws.
I share your concern about letting States flaunt US drug laws (even though I think the laws themselves are stupid). But calling it an “armed rebellion” is silly. If the Feds decided to stop the legalization programs, there’s no question they’d be able to, and zero chance the States involved would attempt any sort of violent action to stop them.
As to the OP, I’d only consider a rebellion if I thought essential rights were being threatened. I don’t think any of the examples given rise to that.
Violence, by the government, against me, my family and my community would do it, regardless of the politics involved, or whether there is any hope of success. Self defense is kind of sacred that way.
When it comes to poor communities who get stormed by violent SWAT teams, have all their young males sent to prison, and/or forcibly deported to foreign countries, I’m surprised this hasn’t happened already. I suppose as long as the majority aren’t treated like this, marginalized communities can be oppressed with impunity. The government has always been careful to stop just short of provoking an uprising.