So these nut jobs got caught and I’m seriously happy about that. End of story.
However . . . Hypothetically, at what point is “the consent of the governed” eroded to the point where violent action becomes justified? The Declaration of Independence is our only litmus test, right? Do we use it as a checklist, and revolution becomes morally justified when we hit 6/10? I read somewhere once (probably Wikipedia) that the Patriots only enjoyed 40% support of the colonial freeborn population in 1775. And that support remained a minority until General Washington started dropping the hammer on some lobster backs. You know where I’m headed here, right? If Trump decides to steal the election and 38% of the population says, “Great!” and another 30% is like “Meh, that sucks, but I have to work in the morning.”, is the government ruling without the consent of the governed?
Nobody is fomenting vigilante violence. They are literally defending themselves against the violence being done to them.
Just be aware that the response you want in spots such as these causes more violence, not less. But maybe that’s ok because all the violence is committed by the side that is allowed to do so.
Do you have a single example of a police officer being doxxed who got got by a vigilante mob? Is this a thing that happens, or are you super opposed to them being outed, shunned, and mocked online? Because I know who is actually running mad and being violent.
I would say when
a. The government is perpetrating large scale evil, not isolated incidents. Kids in cages as observed irl would not qualify
b. The evil outweighs the suffering caused by war
c. There is no remedy through the democratic process, including remedies that take a lot of time and work.
Not when public health officials are trying to stop tens of thousands of people from dying and the science supports their decisions, but the governed are too selfish to wear a cloth mask in public.
The first sentence in this paragraph is a great question that I’m not sure anyone has the answer to.
The second sentence is intellectually dishonest unless you’re about to tell me that requiring badge numbers was an idea conceived and installed after the birth of the internet.
First it was 2 weeks to flatten the curve, then it was wear a mask for a few weeks and this will be over. Lol if you think any of these preventive measures are doing anything. Open everything up; stay home if you’re scared
That’s fundamentally a question of legitimacy, which is often likened to angels dancing on pins. The term “consent of governed” is legal words of art, not an actual state of being we are in here today. IMO searching for objective-ish standards for levels of “justification” is a fools errand.
Or… for those of a more transactional manner, it’s a matter of expediency, different in different places/times. Is taking action “justified” if there’s a 95% chance of success, and no significant downside for failure -vs- 5% chance of success and horrifical downsides for failure?
Cliffs: Both the concepts of legitimacy and justification are huge and philosophical. Given the level of discourse already evidenced ITT (ex: racist anarchists no true-scotts-ing each other, or some such non-sense)… I’m not sure that chat can be had here.
They are in places where people actually follow them.
Maybe everyone who feels this way should just go inhale the virus directly and the rest of us can wait the needed 2-3 weeks for you fearless intellectual giants to get us on the path to herd immunity.
But according to a Michigan sheriff, who once shared the stage with one of the twins at an anti-Whitmer rally , they might have only wanted to perform a citizen’s arrest on the Democratic governor, calling the bombshell allegations “just a charge.”
I think we’ve passed that point in 2020. Can’t imagine the FBI going after everyone who says they want to kill someone on the internet. If they did they’d probably start with threats against the President.
I’ll explain it in simple terms. People wear seat belts while in a car. But they don’t use them because they are scared. They use them in case they get in a car accident.
Thoughts on Trump telling America that there are 15 cases soon be zero?
Hypothetically, at what point is “the consent of the governed” eroded to the point where violent action becomes justified? The Declaration of Independence is our only litmus test, right? Do we use it as a checklist, and revolution becomes morally justified when we hit 6/10? I read somewhere once (probably Wikipedia) that the Patriots only enjoyed 40% support of the colonial freeborn population in 1775. And that support remained a minority until General Washington started dropping the hammer on some lobster backs. You know where I’m headed here, right? If Trump decides to steal the election and 38% of the population says, “Great!” and another 30% is like “Meh, that sucks, but I have to work in the morning.”, is the government ruling without the consent of the governed?