NationStates Jolt Archive


The Right of Revolution - A Proposal

The Global Market
26-11-2003, 04:08
It's most of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. I might make it a Democratic Freedoms proposal. What do you all think?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
26-11-2003, 04:27
Hmmm... John Locke, eh? He had some interesting ideas, but the right to revolution, well...

IC: Absolutely NOT! If the people don't like me as their ruler, well they can go to the place underground that I call the gulag (my prison system, not hell... silly people). Then they can undergo severe torture and indoctrination where they are subsequently released, brainwashed into my way of thinking. This resolution defies MY right to rule my nation in a sovereign manner.

Down with the right to revolution!
Naleth
26-11-2003, 05:19
It's all well and good, but you know there will be criticism for not being specific enough. How would you define when it is jno longer "prudent" or just what matters are "transient" or a "well established government."

I'd probably vote for this and deffinetly endorse it, though. (trying to implement a voting system in my region because of some complaints is the biggest reason I say probably here).
26-11-2003, 07:23
I dont forsee myself supporting a proposal that could lead to the overthrow of my government. But Im not a delegate, so its a moot point :roll:
Collaboration
26-11-2003, 08:06
Lackey: "Sire, the peasants are revolting!"
King: "That's always been my opinion as well."

Why not? It's a noble principle.
Do you suppose it is harmonious with game mechanics? After all, some nations are set up purposely to suppress all dissent.
We however, the peaceful tribes, value freedom of conscience above all else. This proposal suits our values well.
26-11-2003, 08:54
I don't see anything anti-game mechanics in it. Of course, the phrasing of any legal document is deliberately done to allow all sorts of interpretations (in which case it would be a perfect proposal :wink: ).
26-11-2003, 14:45
In an enlightened royal governance such as ours we recognize the fact that ultimate power rests, however sadly and unfortunately, with the people. Revolution is a basic human right. However, outside of diplomatic channels, we question the need to advertise this fact! Ultimately if unified the population of any country could overthrow their rulers, no matter the size or how technologically advanced the military or other agencies of control are. All governments should recognize this fact, but it's a matter that is best kept quiet. Revolution, as a basic human right, is a natural occcurence. When in the course of human events a government does enough to deny Mr. Locke's principles, the people will ultimately rise up and revolt. This is a historical fact. Let us not tamper with the natural order by giving too many ideas to the popluation.