Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
When is armed rebellion justified?
I was wondering when taking up arms against the state you belong to is morally just.
For instance we know that the Americans rebelled against the British Monarchy. 'No taxation without representation!' was the slogan behind the 'revolution' (of which 50 percent of the Americans were opposed my teacher in American history once told us). So being taxed without having a representative voice in government is just cause for taking up arms.
In the events leading up to the French Revolution a few years after, money was at the centre of the issue once again. The French state had repeatedly defaulted on its debts to the public. Specifically the experiment with issuing paper money had led to many being ruined, because too many were issued. Money was then in effect a note of debt made to the purchaser by the state. The French monarchy fought numerous wars and they had to be funded somehow. Specifically the expenses paid for the American Civil War bankrupted the french state. In conclusion if the state is a bad debtor, taking up arms against it is justified.
The motivating factor behind the Russian Revolution also had to with money. This time the problem was that while everyone had plenty of money there was nothing of value to buy. The main reason was that no one were willing to sell. The reason behind this was that the peasants had no wish of selling their produce because there was nothoing to buy for it. They had all they needed, or the town industries could not provide them with what they wanted. In any case the towns had to be fed somehow so Lenin had the brilliannt idea of sending armed thugs into the peasant villages to rob them of their food supplies. So if there is nothing to sell or buy and people are starving, then revolution might be the answer. Whether the Russian revolution was justified or not is still hot potato.
This leads us to the present day. There was the Iranian revolution. Currently there is some unrest in many Islamic countries. In Algiers, Egypt and especially Saudi Arabia armed groups are actively trying to topple the regime.
However, if history is a guideline, I don't believe they will be very succesful. First of all taxation in Islamic countries are negliable, secondly borrowing money is hardly worth it because no intersist is allowed. hence the state cannot default since there are no outstanding loans. I might be wrong on that though. Thirdly, I don't believe people are actually starving and trade in these countries semm to be very profitable to all concerned. Thus it is very hard for me to see from whence all the dissatisfaction stems.
I think that while tradition has it that the American, French and Russian revolutions were progressive and justifiable, the Islamic Revolution is hard to fathom because there seem to be no basic economic incentive behind it.
So what do you think. Is it a just cause for fundamentalists to depose the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algiers or anywhere else in the Islamic world?
I was wondering when taking up arms against the state you belong to is morally just.
For instance we know that the Americans rebelled against the British Monarchy. 'No taxation without representation!' was the slogan behind the 'revolution' (of which 50 percent of the Americans were opposed my teacher in American history once told us). So being taxed without having a representative voice in government is just cause for taking up arms.
In the events leading up to the French Revolution a few years after, money was at the centre of the issue once again. The French state had repeatedly defaulted on its debts to the public. Specifically the experiment with issuing paper money had led to many being ruined, because too many were issued. Money was then in effect a note of debt made to the purchaser by the state. The French monarchy fought numerous wars and they had to be funded somehow. Specifically the expenses paid for the American Civil War bankrupted the french state. In conclusion if the state is a bad debtor, taking up arms against it is justified.
The motivating factor behind the Russian Revolution also had to with money. This time the problem was that while everyone had plenty of money there was nothing of value to buy. The main reason was that no one were willing to sell. The reason behind this was that the peasants had no wish of selling their produce because there was nothoing to buy for it. They had all they needed, or the town industries could not provide them with what they wanted. In any case the towns had to be fed somehow so Lenin had the brilliannt idea of sending armed thugs into the peasant villages to rob them of their food supplies. So if there is nothing to sell or buy and people are starving, then revolution might be the answer. Whether the Russian revolution was justified or not is still hot potato.
This leads us to the present day. There was the Iranian revolution. Currently there is some unrest in many Islamic countries. In Algiers, Egypt and especially Saudi Arabia armed groups are actively trying to topple the regime.
However, if history is a guideline, I don't believe they will be very succesful. First of all taxation in Islamic countries are negliable, secondly borrowing money is hardly worth it because no intersist is allowed. hence the state cannot default since there are no outstanding loans. I might be wrong on that though. Thirdly, I don't believe people are actually starving and trade in these countries semm to be very profitable to all concerned. Thus it is very hard for me to see from whence all the dissatisfaction stems.
I think that while tradition has it that the American, French and Russian revolutions were progressive and justifiable, the Islamic Revolution is hard to fathom because there seem to be no basic economic incentive behind it.
So what do you think. Is it a just cause for fundamentalists to depose the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algiers or anywhere else in the Islamic world?
