NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a ponderment to see what everyone thinks about the title.

Under what conditions is vigilantism acceptable? Treason? Rebellion? And why are those behaviors more acceptable in those conditions and not in others?

Just a ponderment to see what everyone thinks about the title.

Under what conditions is vigilantism acceptable? Treason? Rebellion? And why are those behaviors more acceptable in those conditions and not in others?

A theocracy sounds like a good reason for rebellion.

Rebellion = when things are unfair or stOOpid.

Rebellion = when things are unfair or stOOpid.

Care to be more specific?

A theocracy sounds like a good reason for rebellion.

Does the religion of the theocracy matter? What if it's a theocracy that allows free speech, a free market, &c.?

Does the religion of the theocracy matter? What if it's a theocracy that allows free speech, a free market, &c.?

Doesn't matter the religion.

A theocracy probably doesn't allow free speech as people would say things that are improper about the Religion.

Vigilantism - never, unless there really isn't a police.

Treason - if you disagree with your government's policy, and you prefer the other side, treason is the way to go. Of course it will never be "right" by the country you betray and always by the country you help.

Rebellion - that's more difficult, but a good guideline is that if your vote counts as much as everyone else's, and you're allowed to start a political party, there is no need for violence.

thats a tough question

vigilanteism is "acceptable" when there is no recourse to law to solve your problem. NOT when the law rules against you but when the law doesnt ever show up. like that man a few years back in florida who had his store broken into so many times that he electrified his roof and ended up killing someone.

treason is only "acceptable" if you feel your country is so evilly wrong in doing something that you need to give your life to stop it. the punishment for treason needs to be death no matter what your excuse so you better be damned sure that it need to be done.

rebellion is only "acceptable" if the government is so far gone that it no longer represents the people and there is no other way to change it. NOT when the majority overrules you. NOT when the majority is too lazy to get off their asses and vote the bad guys out of office but ONLY when the only way to get the bad guys out of office (and restore majority rule) is by armed rebellion.

A theocracy sounds like a good reason for rebellion.
A theocracy, of course, being when the rulers carry out every action for the sake of God, YHWH, Allah, etc? Which is, obviously, entirely different from secular Western governments, where the rulers act in the name of "the children" or "the people"?
A theocracy isn't inherently worse or better then any other government, in fact, a theocracy (if properly implemented) would probably be the best sort of government. All you'd need to do is get it right the first time and insure that your priesthood are fanatically conservative (by which I mean they would deny anyone the right to change the laws) enough, then you won't have to worry about corruption of your original ideals.

Vigilantism - Assuming that by vigilantism you mean hunting the person down after the act, then it is only acceptable if some sense of justice is maintained. In most cases, the closest approximation to justice is the court system. However, there is nothing magical about the courts, and if you can assemble a passable imitation, it is all good.

Treason - If by treason, you mean spying, then it is never acceptable. However, officially leaving one side for another (so everyone knows the score) is acceptable whenever you feel the grass is greener on the other side.

Rebellion - Governments are a lot like forests, periodically you need a fire to clean out the brush and other trash that builds up. In a Democratic system, rebellion is supposed to be easy and bloodlessly facilitated through voting. If the voting is rendered ineffective for some reason, though, then some bloodletting is neccessary.

Doesn't matter the religion.

A theocracy probably doesn't allow free speech as people would say things that are improper about the Religion.
Agreed. And it should be noted that there's a huge gulf between having a state religion and having a theocracy. In a country like the US where lots of people take their faiths way too seriously for comfort, a state religion is probably a bad idea, but lots of western European nations seem to manage quite well with one.

Vigilantism - Assuming that by vigilantism you mean hunting the person down after the act, then it is only acceptable if some sense of justice is maintained. In most cases, the closest approximation to justice is the court system. However, there is nothing magical about the courts, and if you can assemble a passable imitation, it is all good.

So kangaroo courts are acceptable to you?

Treason - If by treason, you mean spying, then it is never acceptable. However, officially leaving one side for another (so everyone knows the score) is acceptable whenever you feel the grass is greener on the other side.

Is spying the only caveat? What if you cannot get to the group that you wish to support and in expressing your wish to switch sides by discreetly seeking out information on how to do so, you are arrested for treason? Is treason determined by the law or is it determined by something else? A higher moral code?

So kangaroo courts are acceptable to you?
Governments can have kangaroo courts too. What I meant to say was that, provided justice is held, I don't care what it looks like.
If the mob outside is willing to form an impartial tribunal, with men on the defense and prosecution providing logical reasons and evidence of why the defendant should be set on fire, and if that tribunal considers both sides of the argument fairly, free from emotion, prejudgement, and corruption, then they have inacted justice. The fact that they had no government to back their desicion is irrelevant.
Is spying the only caveat? What if you cannot get to the group that you wish to support and in expressing your wish to switch sides by discreetly seeking out information on how to do so, you are arrested for treason? Is treason determined by the law or is it determined by something else? A higher moral code?
My beliefs on treason are based on my own (admittedly minimal) code of honor. Simply put, you should always make it clear who you are working for. The world is a dangerous enough place, without people who claim to be your friends stabbing you in the back.
And if you switch sides (if you were trying to join the other group, then you'd already abandoned your former government) then you've made yourself the enemy. In which case, you're old government is right to catch you and remove a potential threat.

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - some roman dude.

Simply put, you should always make it clear who you are working for. The world is a dangerous enough place, without people who claim to be your friends stabbing you in the back.
To use the classic example...if you were German, and you hated the Nazis, and it would help more to spy and otherwise be treachorous, you wouldn't do it? And potentially condemn thousands of both Germans and their victims to death, as well as jeopardising your relations with the Allies?

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - some roman dude.

Treason was invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers.

Rebellion is never illegal in the first person, our rebellion. It is only in the third person, their rebellion, in which it is illegal.

-Benjamin Franklin

To use the classic example...if you were German, and you hated the Nazis, and it would help more to spy and otherwise be treachorous, you wouldn't do it? And potentially condemn thousands of both Germans and their victims to death, as well as jeopardising your relations with the Allies?
The world is a terrible enough place without your friends stabbing you in the back, and, since I don't want that to happen to me, I extend the same courtesy to others.
So, no, if I felt the need to fight my fellow countrymen, I'd have to make my allegiance clear.

The world is a terrible enough place without your friends stabbing you in the back, and, since I don't want that to happen to me, I extend the same courtesy to others.
So, no, if I felt the need to fight my fellow countrymen, I'd have to make my allegiance clear.

So you think that Rommel was a bastard, then? First for being a Nazi and then for betraying the Nazis? Odd....

So you think that Rommel was a bastard, then? First for being a Nazi and then for betraying the Nazis? Odd....
You're thinking of Stauffenberg.
Rommel told them he couldn't actively help - he just agreed to playing a poster boy if the thing succeeded.

So you think that Rommel was a bastard, then? First for being a Nazi and then for betraying the Nazis? Odd....
I think that Rommel (who I don't believe ever officially became a Nazi) was against the July Plot, but got caught out up in Hitler's crackdown anyway.

I think that Rommel (who I don't believe ever officially became a Nazi) was against the July Plot, but got caught out up in Hitler's crackdown anyway.

He sure was pretty chummy with Hitler for a while... headed Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler for a while, too (Hitler's personal bodyguard), until Hitler decided to invade France, at which point Rommel managed to get reassigned to a frontline unit (which he wanted).

You're thinking of Stauffenberg.
Rommel told them he couldn't actively help - he just agreed to playing a poster boy if the thing succeeded.

Rommel's pretty much the poster boy for the plot among the Western Allies. :p

But, yeah. I can't ever remember Stauffenberg's name and the two had a good deal of similarities (both dissillusioned, both served in DAK, &c.).

He sure was pretty chummy with Hitler for a while... headed Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler for a while, too (Hitler's personal bodyguard), until Hitler decided to invade France, at which point Rommel managed to get reassigned to a frontline unit (which he wanted).
The Leibstandarte, despite its name, was not really his bodyguard though. It may have started off that way, but it was quickly turned into an elite Waffen-SS Division.
And since Rommel was in the Wehrmacht and not in the SS, he never headed the Leibstandarte.

He did however head the "Führerbegleitbattallion", which was something of a bodyguard unit. But only for a short time, and only because he already was a well-known strategist and hero of WWI.

The Leibstandarte, despite its name, was not really his bodyguard though. It may have started off that way, but it was quickly turned into an elite Waffen-SS Division.
And since Rommel was in the Wehrmacht and not in the SS, he never headed the Leibstandarte.

He did however head the "Führerbegleitbattallion", which was something of a bodyguard unit. But only for a short time, and only because he already was a well-known strategist and hero of WWI.

That man had too many bodyguard units.... Was Fuehrerbegleitbatallion a part of Grossdeutschland Division?

That man had too many bodyguard units.... Was Fuehrerbegleitbatallion a part of Grossdeutschland Division?
No. Großdeutschland started as the Reichswehr regiment stationed in and around Berlin.

The Führerbegleitbattallion was originally drawn from the best of that guard regiment, but it was then seperated from the division. But it only ever saw action in the Ardennes, as far as I know.

No. Großdeutschland started as the Reichswehr regiment stationed in and around Berlin.

The Führerbegleitbattallion was originally drawn from the best of that guard regiment, but it was then seperated from the division. But it only ever saw action in the Ardennes, as far as I know.

I'd think that Grossdeutschland would be elite enough. The hell do you need a unit even more elite than that for? That would be like the Green Berets having an even more elite sub-unit under SOCOM....

Anyway, we're getting quite sidetracked here.