[Piano Red]

A question to all the "might makes right" folk (at least, it seems, regarding their attitude towards rebellions): will the current insurgencies in Iraq be legitimate if they succeed

Insurgencies /= Rebellions. It's unlikely that in the long term they'll succeed in their stated objectives anyway.

[Ombrageux]

Insurgencies /= Rebellions

You're going to have to elaborate on that.

[The Immortal Goon]

Sure they had a right to revolt. Firstly, as has been pointed out, when enough people aren't happy, they have a right to do something about it.

Secondly, what is always downplayed be these arguments is the representation.

It was said that "Americans didn't really want representation." That's true for the Sons of Liberty and some other agitation groups, but for the broad masses this was an important distinction.

The men in London had spent a lot of money on the colonists' defense, and it is only fair that the colonists themselves should help pay. The taxpayers in Britain proper were still paying even higher taxes, even with the Stamp Act.

Think about it this way: You have no representation in DC. The President and the Senate are now hereditary, and the House of Representatives can only be manned by people from the District of Columbia.

On top of that, they have a state religion that isn't the same religion as 90% of the rest of the country.

They also send the army around, who often sneer at the rest of the country as being bumpkins and you are legally obliged to host young male soldiers who havent' seen a woman in months at your house with your family instead of them having a barracks or something.

Eventually, you're just asking for trouble, essentially. Them telling the rest of the nation to fight a war and then raise taxes was just a spark that made people resent the system; having soldiers use lethal force on an angry populace was raising the stakes; and then going in to active military combat against a few pissed off partisans was where they lost the colonies.

It's the same thing that happened in most of the British Colonies - they (naturally) had a system that heavily favoured Westminster, and when cracks in the system emerged they were completely inflexible and tried to kill everyone who opposed them. The Commonwealth countries of today agitated when there was a more flexable Government in London. The Canadians were able to get a Home Rule Bill, the Boers were able to sue for an early and rather just peace; and so on and so forth.

-TIG

[Potemkin]

A question to all the "might makes right" folk (at least, it seems, regarding their attitude towards rebellions): will the current insurgencies in Iraq be legitimate if they succeed

Yes. If they have sufficient popular support, and they carry through their insurgency to a successful conclusion, then they will become political leaders and be written up in the history books as glorious heroes. How do you think most political elites in the world began?

The question as to whether a rebellion or insurgency is 'justified' or not is twofold - 1) is it legally justified? or 2) is it morally justified? As far as (1) goes, any uprising is by definition illegal, and the authorities are within their legal rights to try to crush it. As for (2), if the general population are oppressed and/or exploited, then they are morally justified in rising up against their oppressors. If, however, they know their cause is doomed from the outset, then it is actually immoral to start a rebellion. It is in this sense that I believe 'might makes right'.

[Far-Right Sage]

A question to all the "might makes right" folk (at least, it seems, regarding their attitude towards rebellions): will the current insurgencies in Iraq be legitimate if they succeed

Yes, but what does "legitimate" mean, really? Legitimate means that they will have effective control of Iraq and be recognized as the "legitimate" government because in reality, might does make right. The Nazi Party was the legitimate government of Germany. Salvadore Allende was the legitimate Chilean head of state. Being a legitimate government of a recognized nation-state doesn't mean that outside parties won't try to interfere with your status if you are deemed a threat, or even if your interests don't coincide. There have been plenty of "legitimate" governments which have been successfully acted against by other "legitimate" governments. Again, might makes right.

The American revolutionaries won. Therefor, the United States became independent of British rule. If the American revolutionaries lost, they would have been cast out, hunted down and executed by the British authorities. It doesn't mean their struggle was right or not right, moral or immoral. It simply is.

[Ombrageux]

If, however, they know their cause is doomed from the outset, then it is actually immoral to start a rebellion. It is in this sense that I believe 'might makes right'.

I actually agree with that. And not necessarily limited to military problems, any successful investment has success as its own justification.

[Torwan]

Yes, they had the right to revolt as any other colony had the right to revolt.

Why?

Because the people wanted to have their say on who governs them. The american colonists didn't have that right, so they revolted. They also had developed a different culture, different problems and their own identity that differed from the United Kingdom.

From the moment on the UK used military power to quell any resistance instead of using diplomacy and political processes to solve the problems, the UK-soldiers were nothing more than occupants in a foreign country.

[Potemkin]

Because the people wanted to have their say on who governs them. The american colonists didn't have that right, so they revolted.

But the majority of the British people themselves had no say on who governed them. At that time, almost no people in the world had that right. By what right then did the American colonists rebel? They were being treated no worse than the British people themselves were being treated.

They also had developed a different culture, different problems and their own identity that differed from the United Kingdom.

So? I fail to see the relevance of this. The South of the USA has a different culture, problems and identity than the North; does this mean they have the right to secede? The historical process suggests not.

From the moment on the UK used military power to quell any resistance instead of using diplomacy and political processes to solve the problems, the UK-soldiers were nothing more than occupants in a foreign country.

Just as the troops of the ruling class were an occupying army in Britain itself. I fail to see the difference.

[Torwan]

But the majority of the British people themselves had no say on who governed them. At that time, almost no people in the world had that right. By what right then did the American colonists rebel? They were being treated no worse than the British people themselves were being treated.

People have the right to resist an authoritarian government that doesn't care for them.

Of course you as a marxist have another opinion about this. I, as a democrat, stand by this opinion.

So? I fail to see the relevance of this. The South of the USA has a different culture, problems and identity than the North; does this mean they have the right to secede? The historical process suggests not.

To some degree - yes.
If the South of the US would want to have their own state, who should stand in the way? Of course it would be (and it was) the interest of the North to preserve the Union and they won the war, so the argument is academic.

However, this discussion is totally academic itself. There is no "highest law" where there is written "A group of people have the right to rebel, if...". If people feel mistreated or have the desire to create their own state, they do have a right to do it.

Our culture promotes individualism (OK, marxism doesn't, it promotes conformism), so the individual is the most important thing. And if the individual wants its own state - then it has the right to do it as it has a right to voice its opinion - just as we do know, here, in this thread.

Just as the troops of the ruling class were an occupying army in Britain itself. I fail to see the difference.

People agreed with the continental army, but not with the British. That's the difference.

[Ombrageux]

People agreed with the continental army, but not with the British. That's the difference.

The American Revolution was something of a civil war as well. It's not like American leaders were elected by the people. They made a poor man's version of the British model, with only propertied (very wealthy) White males having the vote (with the exception of Pennsylvania I believe).

[Potemkin]

The American Revolution was something of a civil war as well. It's not like American leaders were elected by the people.

I believe up to a third of the American colonists were actually Loyalists who supported the British Crown. Needless to say, after the success of the American traitors, er, I mean heroes of the Revolution, they either fled the country or kept their mouths shut.

[Far-Right Sage]

I believe up to a third of the American colonists were actually Loyalists who supported the British Crown. Needless to say, after the success of the American traitors, er, I mean heroes of the Revolution, they either fled the country or kept their mouths shut.

Frankly, it would have been a bit foolish and hypocritical, as well as potentially dangerous, to remain in the colonies(or independent new state; however you wish to look at it). I likely would have just fled to the United Kingdom; one would probably be well received there.

[sazerac]

The reason they speak English in Canada is because thousands of British loyalists from America migrated to there.

[Torwan]

Frankly, it would have been a bit foolish and hypocritical, as well as potentially dangerous, to remain in the colonies(or independent new state; however you wish to look at it). I likely would have just fled to the United Kingdom; one would probably be well received there.

I wouldn't be so sure. People left Europe for the New World for a reason.

What would a refugee from the american colonies do in Europe? Without any useful family ties he would have been lost and even then - his skills may not be needed in Europe. "The frontier" requires different skills than the "established old world".

[Far-Right Sage]

What would a refugee from the american colonies do in Europe?

The same thing a Soviet dissident, Holocaust survivor, or Cambodian refugee would do in the United States.

[Ombrageux]

The same thing a Soviet dissident, Holocaust survivor, or Cambodian refugee would do in the United States.

I believe the conversation has indeed moved deep into the realm of unspeak.

[The Immortal Goon]

If, however, they know their cause is doomed from the outset, then it is actually immoral to start a rebellion. It is in this sense that I believe 'might makes right'.

Not necessarily. In the right conditions, it can be extraordinarily effective. The 1916 Dublin Rising comes to mind, for instance. And for all practical purposes, a bunch of farmers taking on the greatest military power the world has ever seen - and in only a few years after many colonies had been fighting for centuries - was along the same lines.

If you were to make a comparison to the 20th century, the US was the "weak link" in the chain of the world economies at the time. It was strong enough to exert itself, but weak enough to be exploited.

What would a refugee from the american colonies do in Europe?

The American Revolution had a lot more to do with class than people like to think.

The people who had the means to go to England were probably quite happy that their class was now in charge and had thrown off the landed aristocracy or were looking forward to becoming landed aristocracy themselves.

Those who remained loyalists and were too cowardly to join the military or whatever, would have never lowered themselves to be among the English working class, or the Irish or Scots general population. They would have been unwelcome everywhere else in British "society." So it was off to Canada.

The radical patriots who had the means and wanted to further radicalized either had to swallow the pill that it was too late after sixteen years of Federalist rule and do what they could (as per Jefferson), or move to France and keep the flame going (Thomas Paine). Those who didn't have the means left the whole thing behind and went west to be left the hell alone.

-TIG