4 ms·

> About 1 in 3 Americans believe that "violence against the government can at times be justified," Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe nex

> About 1 in 3 Americans believe that "violence against the government can at times be justified," Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions. This poll doesn't highlight polarization. It highlights polling minus a clue. Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?

morelisp 5y ago
In fact in many states (countries and US states) the right to violence against an unjust government is explicitly codified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_as_positive_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a... Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics?
- rayiner 5y ago
  > Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics? To a new breed of globalists, yes. Populism is a bad word now, remember?
  - morelisp 5y ago
    No agreement from me. It’s got nothing to do with globalism and populism is bad. We’ve just had an unprecedented period of peaceful transition of power in the US (~150 years) and people are a bit forgetful.
Barrin92 5y ago
>Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence? not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- morelisp 5y ago
  > A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable I mean that’s almost tautological, right? There’s only the barest of lines between “sovereign authority” and “governing”. The key is that you replace the authority with one that doesn’t justify violence. (Which I’m not saying is trivial, but lots of groups have done it reasonably well.)
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  Why is violence not justified when the sovereign authority is itself founded on nothing more than violence, as has been the case for most historical governments? I would say the opposite. Violence is always justified against a non-democratic government (virtually all governments historically), as non-democratic governments have no basis for legitimacy other than having been the most successful at applying violence.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    I think that's not right for two reasons. One is that legitimacy isn't equivalent to democracy. I think it's more appropriate to define a legitimate authority as one that acts in the interests of its constituency, democracy is just a process for bringing authority into power. There are non-democratic institutions or governments around that are legitimate, and there are democratically empowered governments that are illegitimate. Extreme cases including religious or ethnic populist movements that end up slaughtering substantial parts of the population. Second reason is, I don't think most non-democratic governments hold power due to application of violence (few exceptions, mostly small). If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them, they've done so in the past. The reason they don't is that they see the government as legitimate, even if not democratic. Basically the same way corporations work. Very few are democratic, but they're not really upheld by physical force. The Catholic Church still has non-democratic legitimacy over a billion people. Clearly that's not because of the 500 Swiss Guard members in the Vatican.
ren_engineer 5y ago
yeah, this is a terrible question >While a 2015 survey found no significant partisan divide when it comes to the question of justified violence against the government, the new poll identified a sharper rise on the right — with 40 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents saying it can be acceptable. The view was held by 23 percent of Democrats, the survey finds. It also specifies "against the government" which is way different than against fellow citizens. This is basically asking if you think citizens have a right to fight against perceived tyranny. Republicans and Independents skew anti-government in general
rayiner 5y ago
Right. The third President: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tre... > What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I’m surprised it’s so low.
- trembonator 5y ago
tablespoon 5y ago
>> About 1 in 3 Americans believe that "violence against the government can at times be justified," > Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions. > ...Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence? Also you have to remember the America was literally founded with "violence against the government" [aka the British Crown]. To answer "no" to that poll question is to basically reject American independence.
Jansen312 5y ago
It is in the constitution, aka 2nd. Founding fathers already given us the permission to do so and expected sometime down the line, American government will go rogue. If the courts are expected to be scared or corrupted with no standing, Americans have been instructed by our founding fathers to take up arms to rectify domestic enemies. Other countries like Brits and China have no such permissions inscribe in their constitutions hence they are expected to be subservient to their governments whims (e.g. HK).

morelisp 5y ago

In fact in many states (countries and US states) the right to violence against an unjust government is explicitly codified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_as_positive_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a... Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics?

rayiner 5y ago
> Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics? To a new breed of globalists, yes. Populism is a bad word now, remember?
- morelisp 5y ago
  No agreement from me. It’s got nothing to do with globalism and populism is bad. We’ve just had an unprecedented period of peaceful transition of power in the US (~150 years) and people are a bit forgetful.

Barrin92 5y ago

>Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence? not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
morelisp 5y ago
> A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable I mean that’s almost tautological, right? There’s only the barest of lines between “sovereign authority” and “governing”. The key is that you replace the authority with one that doesn’t justify violence. (Which I’m not saying is trivial, but lots of groups have done it reasonably well.)
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
Why is violence not justified when the sovereign authority is itself founded on nothing more than violence, as has been the case for most historical governments? I would say the opposite. Violence is always justified against a non-democratic government (virtually all governments historically), as non-democratic governments have no basis for legitimacy other than having been the most successful at applying violence.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  I think that's not right for two reasons. One is that legitimacy isn't equivalent to democracy. I think it's more appropriate to define a legitimate authority as one that acts in the interests of its constituency, democracy is just a process for bringing authority into power. There are non-democratic institutions or governments around that are legitimate, and there are democratically empowered governments that are illegitimate. Extreme cases including religious or ethnic populist movements that end up slaughtering substantial parts of the population. Second reason is, I don't think most non-democratic governments hold power due to application of violence (few exceptions, mostly small). If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them, they've done so in the past. The reason they don't is that they see the government as legitimate, even if not democratic. Basically the same way corporations work. Very few are democratic, but they're not really upheld by physical force. The Catholic Church still has non-democratic legitimacy over a billion people. Clearly that's not because of the 500 Swiss Guard members in the Vatican.

ren_engineer 5y ago

yeah, this is a terrible question >While a 2015 survey found no significant partisan divide when it comes to the question of justified violence against the government, the new poll identified a sharper rise on the right — with 40 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents saying it can be acceptable. The view was held by 23 percent of Democrats, the survey finds. It also specifies "against the government" which is way different than against fellow citizens. This is basically asking if you think citizens have a right to fight against perceived tyranny. Republicans and Independents skew anti-government in general

rayiner 5y ago

Right. The third President: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tre... > What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I’m surprised it’s so low.

trembonator 5y ago

tablespoon 5y ago

>> About 1 in 3 Americans believe that "violence against the government can at times be justified," > Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions. > ...Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence? Also you have to remember the America was literally founded with "violence against the government" [aka the British Crown]. To answer "no" to that poll question is to basically reject American independence.

Jansen312 5y ago

It is in the constitution, aka 2nd. Founding fathers already given us the permission to do so and expected sometime down the line, American government will go rogue. If the courts are expected to be scared or corrupted with no standing, Americans have been instructed by our founding fathers to take up arms to rectify domestic enemies. Other countries like Brits and China have no such permissions inscribe in their constitutions hence they are expected to be subservient to their governments whims (e.g. HK).