non aggression principle & politics

Undertoad · 09-01-2005, 11:28 AM

But as long as you fight for a minority viewpoint, violent revolution only means the people with the biggest guns win -- pretty much your "worst case" scenario for a people angling for freedom from coersion.

Bigger problem: let's assume that you do indulge in some sort of violence to bring about the government that you want. How would you ensure that the new government does not inevitably fall into the same trap?

You might say you would write a new Constitution, for example, with the wording that you particularly think will work. But isn't that what they did in the first place? Isn't that your whole take - that the plain language of the Constitution is understandable enough already not to violate?

Wouldn't it be folly to indulge in violent revolution without an approach that is guaranteed to be better than the previous?

09-01-2005, 11:28 AM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	But as long as you fight for a minority viewpoint, violent revolution only means the people with the biggest guns win -- pretty much your "worst case" scenario for a people angling for freedom from coersion. Bigger problem: let's assume that you do indulge in some sort of violence to bring about the government that you want. How would you ensure that the new government does not inevitably fall into the same trap? You might say you would write a new Constitution, for example, with the wording that you particularly think will work. But isn't that what they did in the first place? Isn't that your whole take - that the plain language of the Constitution is understandable enough already not to violate? Wouldn't it be folly to indulge in violent revolution without an approach that is guaranteed to be better than the previous?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)