-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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This is all based on the

This is all based on the premise the the rebel wants to replace the authority, which is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a "rebel" is most context. I get the point you tried to make but for this argument to valid, it really depends on what a rebel is. In a way your argument supports claim that Anarchism, the absence of a state authority, as being morally superior. If that was your intent, kudos, if not Google "Agorism".

"War is a Racket" - Maj. General Smedley Butler


sharkhearted's picture

The Age of Authoritarianism....

...its many millennia reign...

is DEAD.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

What morality are you basing this off of?

This has to be the worst example of rational thought I've ever heard. I will give it props because it has some critical thinking skills displayed throughout it.

What you don't define, is the terms.

You don't define who is rebelling, why they are rebelling, what changes are made. Life is 100% grey areas, your defining it as black and white, that there is only two options neither is correct.

I will give you the answer you need to complete your conundrum.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. However the only thing more dangerous than power, is not having it.

Real authority holds power so others do not abuse that power.

You classify those in a rebellion as going against authority. However if the authority has gone against the principles which gives them their authority, they have incited rebellion already, and now the real authority is taking back that right.

What you are not defining is what is right and what is wrong and who is the authority. In America, the individual is the authority, by taking a public office, you are placing yourself below an individual and giving up some of your rights while your in office. Many politicians however would like you to think they control you or have more power while in office. Those type of people are the rebellious ones in America.

Great Post! Government is an

Great Post!

Government is an illegitimate authority. I wish more people could see it.

I agree, and wish this post didn't have so many negative votes.

Thanks! BTW I don't mind


BTW I don't mind the negative votes. As Dr. Paul said, people can't unhear what they've heard. I think there is a truth here that will work through the minds of people who are willing to roll it around a bit.

I've not communicated it perfectly, but I think its in the general vicinity.

So you say...

So you say that through rebellion we "legitimize the illegitimate authority", thus causing a systemic effect of illegitimate power that then transfers throughout the once suppressed and is infected with the same immoratlity as the original suppressor...

but what if not rebelling is also legitimizing the illegitimate authority. If someone trys to hold another person to the ground, the person who is being held down would also be "legitimizing the illegitimate authority" by not trying to resist or rebell. If you try to hold any animal down they will most likely try to physically get up, not just humans. To lie still is to legitimize the illegitimate authority. The authority is the suppression and that exists weither you rebell or not.

i do agree with you on the neverending transfer of the immoral from one power to the next. The seed of evil always looks for a rationalizing way in.


Self defense is not

Self defense is not rebellion, rebellion has an element of retribution in it. I think people can understand that if they consider it.

Your example is using

Your example is using self-defense. OK by the NAP. Rebelling, however, would entail the initiation of force...

that's what it is

That's all perspective. I say rebelling is self-defense. Self-defense is done by opposing a force with a counterforce. Without an opposing force of suppression their is nothing to rebell to. The rebellion would come as an effect and thus be the counterforce. The rebellion begins the moment the suppression begins. It just needs time to grow.


No.7's picture

Jesus Was A Rebel


The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Jesus isn't a rebel. John

Jesus isn't a rebel. John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Jesus came to obsolete the law and the established power, not to rebel against it.

No.7's picture

He also goes in the temple flipping tables in John Chapter 2

Jesus was extremely counterculture for ancient Rome. He ate with sinners, washed women's feet, forgave an adultress and wouldn't eat the kings meat.

Your OP was about not acknowledging or fighting against your oppressor because it only gives the oppressor credibility but now you're saying Jesus didn't rebel against the establishment because he wouldn't fight his oppressors.... whatever dude.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

This is a joke, right? Very

This is a joke, right? Very good one. Hilarious indeed!!

It's better to...

first try to change a mans heart if you have that as an option. All peaceful protests usually end where the leader is killed. But, they usually impact peoples hearts the most. Look at Jesus. He never killed anyone, but he has changed hearts more than any political power. So in a way you're right. If you pit one ego up against another, the larger ego will win out. You still end up with political ego in power. The way to end world suffering is to attack how people think, the rest will then fall into place. Is that rebelling? In a way it is, but peacefully. Unfortunately schools today don't teach how to control your feelings and thoughts. It is the missing ingredient in education.

Law of the Sheeple

Sounds like the law of the sheeple: Follow the flock, get regularly fleeced and herded to slaughter by your authoritative minder.
Sometime it's wise to be the black sheep, even if the herder says its immoral or rebellious.

If you're a black sheep and

If you're a black sheep and the herder is trying to force you to be white, it is not rebellion not to be white.

But it is a bad analogy anyway, because the analogy entails two difference species one of which can morally rule over the other by nature.


Tell that to the herder taking you to the slaughterhouse.

My point is that I'm not a

My point is that I'm not a sheep, I'm a human, so the whole herder thing doesn't make any sense. It would be a immoral for someone to call themselves or behave as if they were my herder and I were their property.

If we have a society that requires that premise in order to function, then my goal would be to create the ideas or technology necessary to obsolete that requirement. My progress will obviously be impeded if I am having to constantly defend myself from the encroachments of so called "herders".

Human or animal

Tell that to the armed guard leading you to the gas chamber.

Why would I allow another

Why would I allow another human to lead me to a gas chamber? I'm not a sheep.

Have you ever been led to a gas chamber?

None of us know our sheepishness for certain until we're in that position.

That's when rebellion is vital, regardless of who says or thinks it immoral.

Rebellion might be the only way left


A legitimate authority, the US government is not. If we go by your line of thinking rebellion from a illegitimate government would be just fine. Remember our country was made on rebellion.

On another note morality has nothing to do with rebellion. Everyone has a gain from supporting a rebellion, legitimate or illegitimate governments. So tell me where do you stand, hypothetically speaking of course, if a rebellion was to start?


The Bible. Jesus was a Radical.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

Jesus didn't stage a

Jesus didn't stage a rebellion against the law or the establishment, he obsoleted it by living according to the nature of his identity.

At least

You acknowledge that. His actual birth was an act of defiance to the King. The people were hailing him the messiah and the King saw him as a threat. In my opinion, his entire life was about rebellion.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

Matthew 21:12

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves."

Rebellious to authority, and likely "immoral" to the moneychangers and dove sellers.

Funny thats like saying

If you slap me in the face my best stratigy is to ignore it. My freind you must learn about what I call the laws of the Jungle. Eat or be eaten. Enlightened disengagement is a form of rebellion. The fact that some one makes claims against you makes it impossible to not recognize them. I can not put my head in the sand while my arsh bets eaten I may not recognize the preditor as legitimate but at that point all I want to do is save my indangered area.

I only quibble with you because of your bold statement that is realy just a quibble in the bigger picture of things as they are.

Call it what you like when they come for you.


The Rights of Man...

...bare not the approval of authority. Any authority that may procure it's own legitimacy at the expense of the masses, be that society fair and just or spoiled and rotten, hath no claim purer than the parchment it was soiled upon.

"REBELLION to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson Seal

By BENSON J. LOSSING [Published 1852]
Pg. 548

See Section 5

~Good Night, And Good Luck~

Michael Nystrom's picture


What is the moral contradiction in the current regime?

Bumped to the front page for discussion.

Thank you.

He's the man.

What is the moral contradiction in the current regime?


This administration claims to be for the "American People", but the actions are obviosly for those who controll the money.

A government is only legitament as long as the people let it be.

Our government has been usurped and is being eroded from within.

My two cents.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams