Is A Violent Insurrection Ever Morally Defensible?

[HenryNisental]

If a law is unjust...(Quotation)



Quotation: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
thomas Jefferson, Presidente of the young USA

 

[Gringoboy]

Would a cacerolazo be considered insurrection?
Probably not, but it's not far behind.
2001 was more than an insurrection, more like an unstoppable wave of people power and not intrinsicly (?) a violent insurrection
I think it's justified if the state endeavours to justify violence against the people in whatever form.

 

[Vermonter]

Nelson Mandela advocated the use of force after exhausting every peaceful means of protest available to him. This was of course after the repeated use of violence against the ANC and other minority groups by the Nationalist Afrikaner government. Argentina hasn't reached the point where violence is justifiable. Only when the government chooses violence as an adequate means for suppressing opposition is the use of violence by the people justified, as the government has forsaken it's one and only duty - to protect citizens' rights and serve the people.

 

[El Cipayo]

How would you classify Moreno with his thugs and boxing gloves coming to a board meeting?

Or D'Elia who tries to beat up farmers or violently takes over a police precinct?

 

[Vermonter]

The issue lies in whether the ruling authority can deny they use violence or not. Whoever is in power has the advantage because they can use violence to a limited extent and yet deny its use. Violence and government have been living in a shady grey since 9/11 if not before. The people are often handicapped by a government that uses limited violence to achieve its ends even while pretending to uphold citizens' rights and values.

If people react violently to a government that "denies" the use of violence, then they will be met with oppressive measures that are justified on the grounds of "restoring" peace and order. Or a government can resort to even more sinister tactics and simply disappear those creating all the fuss. The use of violence must first be weighed in its political context by those at the forefront of the activist movement. Even after its use has been weighed, the decision to use violence or not can still be a mistake. Only history will allow us to see the truth in the action.

Violence is always used in a moral "grey area", knowing when it can be used, or when it should be used, depends solely on how history interprets such actions, not by individuals in the moment of decision.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Well, not even the military respects videla.

Former army general balsa was very accurate when he replied videla: there is nothing worst than a mediocre with power.

But you are talking about the President.

I like the idea of this justice reform. They alreay changed SC and you have it as a reference on how does the K work: all the judges are super respected among lawyers. So, they improved the quality of the institution.

I have to deal every day with judges who have no idea about law, or that commit abuse of power because they are racist.

For me it is clear that the consejo de la magistratura works to protect judges who should be in jail. So, the change is good.

It also requires that you have to apply for getting a job at court. Right now there is people takind decisions who aren t able to approve a simple law test at university.

So, the revolucion libertadora against peron was a minor group who made fall a President elected, the consequense is the decline and fall of this country because it created a internal cold war.

So, history shows that it is not moral defensible.

 

[notebook.fix]

What about rampant wholesale corruption? Corruption that results in deaths like the Once train crash? What happens when public officials steal money meant for infrastructure maintenance ? Thousands more die needlessly on the roads in Argentina each year, is there a connection here? La Plata floods resulting in the 52 plus deaths- wasn't the drainage system supposed to have been finished more than 12 years ago? What happened to the funds that were supposed to be spent on it? Our northern borders are totally open to drug runners & contraband,,,does this have an impact on the crime/homicide rates?

My portero lost his ten year old son seven months ago to a train crossing. For many months the rail crossing warning system was broken..the child did not get a warning alarm was run over by the train..within 20 minutes of the accident occuring a railway maintenance technician arrived & fixed the alarm, this is while the childs body was still on the tracks.

How many people would still be living & walking around now if we could have cut down the corruption & willful neglect & mismanagement?

Should we allow public officials to keep stealing public money?

Shouldn't the public be allowed to rise up against criminal politicians? Or should we just sit by & let them all carry on till 2015?

 

[c.pergiel]

Violence is justified if you win. If your revolt is put down, you are just a criminal. As long as the government is playing by the rules, i.e. you are living under the rule of law, it is probably better to try and work within the system. Besides, everyone knows that all Latin Americans are hot-heads. Plotting a violent revolution will automatically make you a hot-head to many outsiders.

 

[PuntaLugano]

Justifying resistance to any government, regardless how that government is put in place, requires resort to principles that precede the existence of any government. If one resorts to such principles, resistance even to a democratically elected government that has broken no law and violated no constitution can be justified. For example, assume one principle preceding the existence of any government is that a person has a right to private property, and that one should be protected by the state in the enjoyment of that property. Now, assume a President elected by a majority, a majority of the legislature properly elected and aligned with that government, and a judiciary that supports that government. With that alignment, it is quite possible for a government to so eviscerate private property as to make the concept virtually meaningless. At some point along the continuum toward such evisceration, a person is morally justified in resisting. People may differ as to where along the continuum justification arises. And that is where Argentina finds itself today -- somewhere along that continuum. For example, the capital controls in place since November 2011 destroy private property, by preventing someone who has worked for years and saved to create capital from protecting that capital by purchasing Dollars (thus exposing the capital to sure erosion through inflation). Is that enough to justify resistance? Most would probably say no. Well, how about confiscatory taxation of second homes (e.g., a recurring 25% tax on the value of a summer house in Mar del Plata)? That could happen in Argentina. Is that enough? There are numerous other plausible examples of what the current Argentinian government could do, within the law and the constitution, given a compliant judiciary.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Rampant corruption? Menem was like that.
The once accident and la plata and CIudad de Buenos aires flooding are what happens when you live in a 3rd world country.

I understand that there is people with a lot of anger with this government because they now have to pay taxes. It is all about that.

They might try an insurrection but k is not peron.

The caceroludos are patetic, they are just bad loosers.