-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.

Well we don't do it by

Well we don't do it by becoming the bad guys and using their bad system. How is authority established over us? It is by a system empowered by means of dependency, fraud, and violence.

It counterfeits charity and creates dependency.
It counterfeits truth and creates fraud.
It counterfeits justice and creates violence.

The solution is to create means of actual charity, truth and justice.

Rebellion is an uncreative and unproductive method that will ultimately just re-establish the same power structures.

If I don't downvote this

If I don't downvote this post, does that mean I am not acknowledging it?

Southern Agrarian

Beep Beep, who's got the keys to the Jeep

Vrooooom

You are confusing rebellion and revolution

Rebels have no desire to rule.

Leges sine moribus vanae

I think it is presumptuous of

I think it is presumptuous of you to claim knowledge of the rebel's desires.

A rebellion is just a revolution without a plan. And a revolution still implies a validation of the premise of power.

Obsoletion is the appropriate methodology.

Try the dictionary for a clue

Definition of REBELLION
1
: opposition to one in authority or dominance
2
a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
b : an instance of such defiance or resistance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebellion

Definition of REVOLUTION
.....
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the SUBSTITUTION of another.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution?show=0&...

Leges sine moribus vanae

The Ron Paul revolution was literally a turning around for me.

The reality is that their are unauthorized forces arrayed against me and my friends.

Except that these forces are motivated by evil self-will, they are like the weather. Being aware does not demand compliance or going out without your Macintosh or galoshes.

Free includes debt-free!

He's not asking people to claim ignorance

He's asking people to either ignore the illegitimate claims of others and live their lives as they would if no one pretended to have authority, or acknowledge that they can only ever possibly rebel against something they themselves have already accepted as an authoritative construct.

"The government is illegitimate, but after everyone rebels against The System and votes for Ron Paul it will become legitimate."

That's the kind of imbecility above which he's encouraging people to rise.

Put another way: recall all the "Freeman on the land" people out there, and ask yourself why they ever thought it necessary to inform anyone that they were declaring themselves to be free. They had no such obligation, for the very reason that they were free in the first place, from birth. The "Freeman on the land" declaration is a rebellion, and as such is an acknowledgement that some kind of "authority" out there remains legitimate.

Language is a cussed thing.

Rebellion is literally a return to war. A war against an authority with the intent of replacing that authority.

Revolution is literally a re-rolling or turning. For me that involved returning to the original retaliation that I am a free individual. It is independent of any real or imagined authority.

I agree with the OP that rebellion and making war is immoral.

Free includes debt-free!

Yes, I also agree with the OP

I have heard of rebellions which turned semi-organized and violent, although I tend to think of them more in the sense of refusal to comply with imagined authority than in the sense of martial engagement with imagined authority. I don't believe any story I've ever heard about non-violent revolutions, preferring to think of such mind programming as bloodless coups featuring PR "news" coverage on the FMSM ("Hooray, they had themselves a revolution for freedom just like Americans did").

One revolution, in my book, equals ending up right back where the trouble began. May Day. Midnight.

If one is being kidnapped one must yell out "Help me I'm being kidnapped" no matter what one's kidnappers are wearing. A rebellion in the form of refusal to comply with kidnapping cannot ever take the form of shouting things like "Go hassle someone else" or "Police brutality" or even "I'm a freeman on the land which means you have no authority over me."

One must try to be courageous enough to interact with every single other human on a one-to-one basis, no matter what the other is wearing or what type of blood they pretend to have coursing through their veins. Note that this does not extend online to "social media," where anonymity precludes any obligation for tact or PC blubbery (any chivers out there?).

In any case, I figure this is all mostly talking around one another, making essentially the same points. Freedom is The Way, and The Way cannot be codified, and so seeking freedom through rebelling against some codified "authority" is nonsensical.