-31 votes

Opinion: All Rebellion is Immoral

You can't rid yourself of an illegitimate authority by rebelling against it. By its very nature a rebellion implies the recognition of and validates the legitimacy of the authority being rebelled against. This validation negates the moral premise of the rebellion: that the authority is illegitimate. For this reason rebellion serves to strengthen the establishment of the authority, not weaken it, even if it is illegitimate.

If the authority is truly illegitimate, then there must be a moral contradiction within its claim to power. Once this is discovered, understood, and communicated, the authority will naturally lose power through obsolescence. If there is no moral contradiction to the authority's claim to power, then it ought to be obeyed, as rebellion would be immoral.

Rebellion is a claim to the authority, it is not an argument against it. It is the other side of the same coin.

The successful rebellion will only serve to change the parties who wield the power of the authority. If the authority is illegitimate, then the rebellion is immoral because the rebels now wield illegitimate authority. If the authority is legitimate, then the rebellion is immoral because the rebels resist legitimate authority.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm sorry but that's incorrect.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Opinion

Absolute Abject Belief In Falsehood Without Question is a bad investment.

Joe

One thing to add.

There is no such thing as legitimate authority.

elaboration...

Just for those who haven't thought about it:

The only purpose to attribute authority to an entity is to allow that entity to do something that it would not be moral for a regular person (without authority) to do.

If something is immoral for a regular person to do...

that thing is immoral for any person to do (period).

If something is not immoral to do, then no authority is needed to do it.

Conclusion: The only purpose of authority is to legitimize evil actions. There is no such thing as legitimate authority.

Aside from that, the OP may very well be making a reasonable point.

This is basically what the

This is basically what the Bible teaches, and it even teaches it in the dreaded Romans 13 that is so often misused to teach the exact opposite.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

It in no way will affect your Liberty to obey a ruler or authority that meets the definition you, or the Bible has put forward here. It would be as if there was no authority over you at all.

deacon's picture

farmer

your first post was short concise and to the point
i wish i had thought of that first :)
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depressiuon

deacon's picture

but by not rebelling

doesn't that mean that we would them agree
by our silence and or inaction against it or them?
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depressiuon

You don't have to be silent

You don't have to be silent or without action, it just doesn't have to be directed at illegitimate authority, instead it could be directed at creating better things.

deacon's picture

question

by doing just that,isn't that how and why we are in the mess we are in now? and i do not mean just in our respective countries,but all combined
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depressiuon

reasons

We are in the mess we are in now due to being lazy and dependent. We are in the mess we are in now because of universal recognition of "authority" which allows the unchecked execution and growth of immoral actions and structures (evil). We are in the mess we are in now due to the cycle created between these two (i.e., dependence on evil and the exercise of evil).

On the face of it, it seems that when oppression becomes too great, rebellion is justified. The colonists did that. It can clearly be seen now that the outcome was a much greater level of oppression, tyranny, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, or whatever you want to call it than King George ever dreamed of. Let's just call it "exercise of perceived authority."

It has been suggested, by Larken Rose, that the answer is to simply recognize there is no such thing as legitimate authority and, in consequence, to ignore it. This approach seems to me to have great merit.

We are not in the mess we are in now because we have done this. We have not done it. Nevertheless, the problem remains that the portion of society who will ever actually see "authority" for the evil it is may remain small.

What also must be added is that we must stop being lazy and dependent. We must become industrious and independent. We must choose the actions that lead to health and strong community. We must create an independent economy and means to feed, clothe, and defend ourselves. We still have plenty of freedom to do these things. Of course, it's not as easy as if we weren't working from a legacy of ignorance, apathy, and dependence, but that's our lot, and we have a choice to make.

Begging the authority to be nicer to us (politics) will not work. Fighting "authority" openly---rebellion---when the vast majority are still under the spell of "authority" and probably will remain so---will not work. Providing for ourselves the structures of health, community, defense and so forth, is perhaps the only way to go.

That's the Catch.

Catch 22 demands that if you recognize an authority then you must volunteer to bend to it's will.

If you don't recognize the authority then you consent. So says the authority.

Clearly we have a moral dilemma here. I thinks it's best if we shut down government until we sort this out.

Of, course, without government there is no dilemma. Maybe we should leave it that way.

Say for 100 years. Then our children can decide which century proved healthier, wealthier and wiser.

Better than leaving our posterity with the creature from Jekyll Island!

Compared to what Bishop had when he built this house in in 1842 the Michigan Wilderness 6 miles East of Detroit. There was nothing here you would come here for except the black locust forests. Makes great wagon wheels and just a half a mile to the Huron River and on to Buffalo NY. Bishop hailed from Livingston NY.

I've got an S10, hitch, and a chainsaw and I live near black locust forests. Not much call for wagon wheels.

Still a hundred year break from government might be doable.

Free includes debt-free!

deacon's picture

i am more than willing

to give that 100 year deal a try
seeing i do not believe anyone is over another
as we are all created equal
and authority is created by man,one man is not above another
but man did not create me,so they can stand beside me,to the back of me
and maybe in the front,but never above me
i see by the directions in your comment you are about 1 1/2 hours away from me,hello neighbor
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depressiuon

What if

You are rebelling against something immoral?

I didn't downvote you because I think this makes for good fodder, but really, what if what you are rebelling against is immoral at it's root?

I rebelled against corporatism. I ended up losing my corporate job, which was one of the most liberating things to ever happen to me. They even gave me 2 months severance to make me go away. Who gives severance pay to someone they fire?

In the case of govt, I think it is immoral not to question it, and in some cases rebel, if questioning does not work.

As many have pointed out, rebellion is what helped create our republic.

So, when all else fails, I find it immoral not to rebel against something which is immoral.

Hope that makes sense.

If it's immoral, wouldn't it

If it's immoral, wouldn't it be better just to leave it and spend your energy pursuing moral purposes that are creative in nature?

Why let something immoral grow in power?

And yep, always pursue a moral ground.

edit: and oh yeah, you just stated you would let something immoral just be, by your logic...

Not a great outlook

but thanks for the thread.

If the immoral is not

If the immoral is not agressing against me, then I don't have a right to defend myself against it. The best way to deprive it of it's power is to deny it access to my concern and work to replace it with something superior.

Rebellion to tyranny is

Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.

According to how I

According to how I believe:

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It seems to be that it would be better to create ways to obsolete the systems that we are tempted to rebel against. In this way we liberate not only ourselves, but also our enemies.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument.

Let's look at some definitions:

rebellion:
1: An act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.
2: The action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

To resist is to refuse to accept or comply with something. So, to rebel is to refuse to accept or comply with the way something is normally done or the commonly recognized or accepted person or body who holds power to influence or direct behavior and events.

I would argue that by its very nature a rebellion expresses the recognition of the illegitimacy of the authority being rebelled against.

The only time a rebellion would be immoral is if the individual or individuals rebelling violated the NAP.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

So by definition to rebel is

So by definition to rebel is to recognize the established government or ruler as such, although illegitimate.

There is no need to do this. Recognize that the established government or ruler is a fraud, and proceed according to what is actual and moral.

If the so called established government encroaches upon your continuance, then defend yourself.

Do you even realize what you are saying?

"So by definition to rebel is to recognize the established government or ruler as such, although illegitimate."

That entire sentence doesn't even make any sense. If you find something to be illegitimate you are saying it is not rightful, legal, or valid. You can't say that it is valid and invalid, rightful and unrightful, legitimate and illegitimate at the same time. If you recognize that they are illegitimate you are recognizing them as a fraud.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

I am talking about what you

I am talking about what you focus your time and energy on. The negative deconstruction of a fraud, or the positive construction of an alternative.

Either one would be a form of rebellion!

The term "rebellion", in and of itself, does not necessarily indicate a negative deconstruction of a fraud. It just means that you do not accept the authority of an established concept or person/body of persons. Wherever one chooses to go from there is up to the individual and doesn't necessarily speak to the nature of their initial decision to rebel.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Immoral by what standard?

Whatever your Mom & Dad taught you as a child?
Whatever your Holy Book says? (And one Holy Book is a better standard than all others -- why, exactly?)
Whatever politicians order you to do? (It's "The Law!")
Or something you cooked up yourself?

Morality is a choice. It is not "optional," because every human being needs SOME moral standard to make the choices he faces every day of his life. But which moral standard one adopts is open to our free will.

People who adopt the non-aggression principle or some variant of the Golden Rule as their moral compass in their dealings with others may all agree that initiating coercion against peaceable folk cannot be morally justified. They are not, however, likely to agree that the use of retaliatory force against an aggressor is a bad thing.

You seem to be paying a lot of attention to the name you put on such retaliatory action. Does it really make a difference if you call it revolution or rebellion or self-defense? Actions taken to remove a tyrant can easily be justified; the imposition of some new "ruler" cannot. Overthrowing a government is a good thing. Establishing a new one -- not.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

The only standard that would

The only standard that would matter is the one you decided upon for yourself, so long as it did not violate natural law (the NAP).

I don't think self-defense is the same thing as rebellion, self-defense is used to stop aggression. It becomes immoral when it changes from self-defense to "hitting back". Hitting back would be considered rebellion in my mind and would be immoral.

So now you're adding a qualifier?

You can make up your own special definition of "rebellion" if you want to, but you can't expect other people to accept that made up definition and from that accept your argument that rebellion is immoral. Nothing in the definition of the word indicates that initiation of force is a necessary component of a rebellion.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Yes, sorry, reality is the

Yes, sorry, reality is the qualifier, I guess I didn't realize I had to spell that out.

What?

So how exactly does reality determine the necessity of rebellion to be an initiation of force?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Actually it is biblical

You can't truly win anything through rebellion. It usually appears like you have won for a period. In truth rebellion makes those who are rebelling like those they are rebelling against. The only way to win against the opponent is through recreation. Because in this way you not only win but you also retain your true existence.

How do we do this? Don't react to anything in society, but with each problem create a new reality. There is more. A lot more. For example the best decisions are made when the emotions are laid aside, Why! Because the emotions can't reason. If anything it wants to get even.

Interesting

Very interesting, that rebellion only exists where there is authority, so if one is rebelling against an illegitimate authority, it's validating that invalid authority.

I guess what's important is the focus and core motive. Just like the hero having to choose what his goal is (kill the villain or save the girl), it's important to not fight against something nearly as much as it is to fight for something. In this case, our loyalty to the Constitution is not rebellion: it's the government that has rebelled against the Constitution and true, proper authority. Those who seek to uphold proper authority are morally in the right.

It's insufficient to tear down a tyrant and oppose evil. We must build up true heroes, and focus on the good we are fighting for.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine