Is It Legal to Overthrow a Tyrannical Government
People who come under the power of a tyrant have no government. The tyrant is not subject to any law; Since he and his subjects have no common superior on earth to judge each other, he and they are in an uncontrolled situation towards each other. It`s worse than the dark road, because at least you have a chance in a one-on-one confrontation if that`s the case; Also, you have a chance if you run. But the odds against us are overwhelming when we face a tyrant; So we are worse off under tyranny without government than in a situation without government. The Declaration is based on the premise that every human being is born with natural rights that are not conferred by any human effort. The Creator or God of nature also gives us rights. These rights are the starting point of government, but they are not political rights. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are divine or natural gifts that no political or state institution can give. Under the government, for example, the coercive activity of the A1 Capone gang can and does take place, but there is at least the prospect of ending it.
In an ungoverned situation, such coercion is likely to end only through complete surrender or death. The ungoverned situation is very uncertain, very precarious, very uncomfortable and unbearable, even if we assume that almost everyone, but not everyone, tends by nature to be cooperative and peaceful. The right of revolution was also included in the preface to the French Constitution of 1793 during the French Revolution of 1793. This preface by 24. June 1793 contained a declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen, including the right to rebellion, in § 35: “When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for every part of them the most sacred of all rights and the most indispensable duty.” [28] In political philosophy, the right to revolution (or right to rebel) is the right or duty of a people to “change or abolish” a government that acts against its common interests or threatens the security of the people for no reason. Throughout history, in one form or another, belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution. Some philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government, but also its duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer says, “It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more understandable than the right to rebel, because the right to rebel ruins the order of power, while the duty to rebel goes beyond that and breaks it.” [34] This recognized law of reparation justified a people who opposed the unconstitutional acts of the government.
Freedom depended on the “ultimate” right of the people to resist. Unconstitutional commandments that violate the “voluntary pact between rulers and ruled” could be “ignored” and arbitrary orders fought by force. [60] This right implied the duty of the people to resist unconstitutional acts. As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775, the government exercised powers to protect the “absolute rights” of the people, and the government lost those powers, and the people could recover them if the government violated this constitutional treaty. [61] That riots and riots are unfortunately diseases as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions of the natural body; That the idea of governing at all times by the mere force of law (what we have been told is the only permissible principle of republican government) has its place only in the dreams of those political physicians whose wisdom despises the warnings of experimental instruction. The “right of the people to change or abolish their government” flows from our natural right to self-government. The concept of self-management is relatively new. In 1776, the world was ruled by kings or warrior leaders. Some aspiring colonialists then wrote the most revolutionary document in human history.
Kings and queens no longer enjoyed divine sovereignty. Instead, the individual was now the one who was endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. Like most revolutionary visions, this one did not suddenly appear on the world stage. Baron de Montesquieu, John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and many others had argued that the “consent of the governed” was dictated by the laws of nature and the God of nature. Of course, not everyone accepted this concept – certainly not King George III or the English nobility. It took seven years of war for the colonies to consolidate their claim to self-government. The right of reparation had such limits as the right to revolution according to natural law. The right to reparation, like the right to revolution, is not an individual right. I mean things like a government-owned and controlled press, rigged elections, political arrests and imprisonments, secret trials, denial of freedom to emigrate, interrogations under torture, and so on in a long and horrific list that would include the official murder of millions of their own citizens before we finish it. Thinkers often stress the great responsibility of claiming the right to revolution.
This raises the question of the meaning of the right to revolution in the 21st century. Since terrorism is recognized as a crime under international law, the concept of the right to revolution is seen as a legal mechanism to distinguish terrorists from freedom fighters. [81] Then we have laws enacted by the same nation for the primary purpose of ensuring that no one has ever overthrown, conspired to overthrow it, or advocated its overthrow—regardless of whether these actions may be justified because the government has become abusive, despotic, or tyrannical. This illustrates a truism – the people have the absolute right to change or abolish any particular form of government, but those in power absolutely never want people to exercise that right. If I had to tell you wholeheartedly that the American people have the God-given right to change or abolish the United States. The government or any state government and replace it with something new, how would you notice? Would you reject the idea because I am the only one saying it? Does the idea seem too radical or too extreme? Would it make a difference if you realized that without this kind of radical extremist thinking, there would be no United States of America at all? Let`s put things in context: it should be painfully obvious that this is (among other things) one of the reasons why the Declaration of Independence hasn`t been seriously considered law by jurists for over 100 years (and why it has been vilified in science).