A "just revolution" theory


I would frame "Just Revolution" theory more pointedly:
"A government which claims it's necessary to violate individuals rights in order to protect them is founded on doubletalk. A revolution to overthrow such fraudulent institution is just and proper."

"Whether a particular just revolution is feasible, and what form it may take, are separate matters."

What do you think?

Best, Michael


  One question I was attempting to address is *when* is it just and proper to undertake a revolution, i.e. in what particular circumstances, and the answer I came up with was basically two-part: (1) When the aims are to replace it with something more libertarian (i.e. more respectful of individual rights, to use Mike Denny's phrasing), and (2) When the means used to revolt are in fact likely to lead to a reality with less force-initiation. Implied (I hope) but not spelled out is the notion that revolutionaries who during a regime-change effort engaged in more force-initiation than the regime they were seeking to overthrow would not meet the "just revolution" hurdle.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))