So, We Can Undermine the Government When It's in the Public's Best Interests, Huh?

[Razor]

I recently made a thread, located here: Batman and Philosophy V. In it, a few people (including the Norcal) said that undermining the government was alright if it was to help the citizenry. I'll include quotes of their entire posts. So, you know, I won't look like I'm being dishonest. Like a certain George W. Bush or Nancy Pelosi.

If the government does not uphold the rights the people hold dear, then it is not representing the people. If the government is not representing the people, the people have a right to rebel.

Yes, a superhero is subversive to the state.

Any actions using force is subverting the state.

But if the people are crying out for justice, and the government is corrupt and rotting and does nothing for the people, nor represent their interests, what is there left but for people to make their own governments using force?

Rebellions can be just if they're truly in the name of the people and by the people. This is what national soverignty is about.

Think of our American rebellion for instance against the terrible tax burden of the British.

"Taxation without representation"

Absolutely it is justified. If you see a woman being raped, do you merely stand aside, and not rock that fucker into next week? simply becuase you arent a cop? fuck no you don't. This entire nation was built on the backbone of vigilantism.

I would never hesitate to step outside of the law to do what is right, and just, and to protect the weak. Batman is absulutely justified, and so is anyone else who will take a stand when there is no one else around who will.

This isn't a thread to attack their posts, I would have done that in the thread if I wanted to. However, and more importantly, this a thread that will challenge everyone who believes Batman is in the right morally to extend that moral attitude into the real world.

Case in Point

Niger Gets a Little Military Junta Happy

Essentially, according to the venerable BBC news, the currently elected President of Niger was corrupt. He even threw out the constitution, pushing through a new one to give himself near dictator like powers and another 3 years as ruler before his term was up. People didn't like this.

There was a military coup, and a military junta (basically a military government of sorts) was formed. The military stressed that civilian rule would be returned in a matter of days, and it was. Sorta. Curfew was lifted, all Niger treaties are still being honored, and plans for a democratic election are being sorted about. As far as everyone knows, these military members are indeed setting up to give power over to the newly elected official, whenever it is established who that is.

I think Bladerunner's post is most essential to my case. In it, he claims the American Revolution was indeed necessary. Because the British were fucking us over in taxes, you see. Ever since Americans were children we have been taught that our act of Rebellion was absolutely necessary. It was patriotic, and it was the thing that had to be done.

However, why are we, as a nation, condemning the military junta in Niger? Sure it was a coup. So? It was ousting a completely corrupt near-dictator. As far as we know, the military junta is taking steps to convert to a democratic and civilian government. Why has the United States and most of the Western World condemned the coup?

Why do we venerate the French Revolution, the birth of Democracy in France and the world? They decapitated hundreds of thousands of people and instituted a Reign of Terror (actual name, by the by) that lasted for years. But we honor the French Revolution, and declare it necessary to the well being of the world. Necessary for Democracy.

I have two questions, really.

1) Is the military in Niger correct for ousting the corrupt leader of Niger?

2) Why the supposed hypocritical stance on revolutions? i.e. The French and American Revolutions being necessary acts of heroism, but the overthrow of a corrupt leader in Niger is wrong?

Stake your claim.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

By your logic Razor, I completely agree with you. The Coup de tat was apparently necessary. In the US and other developed countries we have the luxury of being able to vote the people we don't like out of office. However, third world countries like Niger really don't have the same luxury as evident with the coup.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Of course we can Razor, it's called Revolutionary action. However in this day and age in our countries, we have no reason to revolt, and most people wouldn't care enough if there was, hence why so few people vote in the UK.

In Niger the people are surpressed daily and I would be surprised if they didn't revolt.

With your Bats thread it's a totally different situation because it's a small group of rebels ignoring the rules to protect their citizens and the govering body doesn't like it, whereas other people are comparing that to an entire country revolting against their government, which isn't the same thing at all really.

 

[BladeRunner]

The French revolution was a bloody horrible happening. If you read about the french revolution, basically it's about another inept goverment, a monarchy, in which the people are starving to death from lack of food. The royalty had mountains of food and were completely oblivious to the people. The King and queen were incompetent, and the nobility cared about nothing but their own bellies and pocketbooks. Therefore, the people got pissed and did something about it.

Was what the people did horrible? Yes.

Did it go too far? Absolutely.

Was it necessary? Well that depends on how far you think the government can go before you hold it accountable for it's actions.

Listen, revolutions are horrible things, because they're wars. But nevertheless, some wars are necessary.

Would I prefer evolution over revolution? Absolutely.

I can't talk for America (the government's opinion) on the Nigerian situation. I can't say whether this revolution is just or not, but it sounds like you seem to think it is. I guess we'll see how things turn out.

Also, America is constantly run by different people with different ideologies. Not everyone is going to agree with revolution. Also, it could be as simple as, the American government doesn't want to have to deal with a new Nigerian government.

My point is, there's no absolutes to when a revolution should happen. There's no rule of "this is the breaking point". And if you are going to bring one about you should think very hard before you go about it, because the deaths and devastation that will be involved will be horrific.

 

[Nitafrong]

At the time as far as I am aware the American revolution was viewed as illegal by the rest of world- as all revolts are and then Britains enemies once they say some sucesses recognised it before the rest of the world generally moved to recognition. You guys probably know more about the exact details of this though.

In real world terms this same scenario tends to play out. Countries don't like revolutions or revolts as they tend to be messy, bad for trade, and can claim lots of lives. States also have a dire fear of this kind of thing spreading too- the Domino Effect if you will. A stable government is what all states tend to want and this is why human rights abuses and other ills tend to be overlooked until the hands of the world are forced.

Revolutions tend to be pretty unstable too- with many different groups vieing for power so its probably natural for most states to refuse to recognise a revolt till it has proved that its capable of keeping the country together. That or allow a foreign state exclusive access to some bussiness or resource. The only exception to this tends to be if a government is overthrown with the aid of a foreign power. The populace are an unruly rabble you see- but if a legitimate government cooperates with this illegal act its suddenly legitimate.

So yeah its all really relative whatever reasons a government is overthrown- whether it is corrupt or perfectly moral and respectable- all revolts are technically illegal against the laws of the land and against international laws. If the new powers are capable of running the country though- they will be accepted in from the cold.

(Interesting final point- Costa Rica only formally recongised the Peoples Republic of China in 2005 just before it was to take up its Security Council seat. Up until then it recognised the Taiwanese government- or the Democratic Republic of China- as the legitimate Chinese representatives- and the real Chinese government as mere rebels. Its all about perspective after all )

 

[Tastycles]

What people have to realise I think is that politically, countries in Africa are much less developed. There are few that have found the sorts of stability that exists in the west, and much of that is the cause of these juntas etc. In time, the African continent will be where everyone else is, but because you have poorly educated masses, they are resultantly corruptable. The west's hatred for these juntas generally occurs because the previous dictator was beneficial to us.

Talking about the American and French revoltions, they too happened at a time when the world was a lot less stable than it is now. Had it not been for the support of Britain's enemies, the fledgling USA would have collapsed. Similarly, the French Republic collapsed several times before finding it's modern stability. Revolution is part of the process, with each change giving something to the next regime. Political stabilisation is a long process - it took Europe about 1500 years after Rome fell to find it, and we shouldn't impose our ideas onto foreign countries because they aren't in the same place as us.