NationStates Jolt Archive

Does the natural right to rebel exist?

* In my definition, a natural right begins with anything that you are capable of. You cannot physically recieve permission or be ordered not to breathe, think, or express emotion. These are natural rights, Society can remove you, but it cannot stop you. When you participate in society you repress certain rights to properly function. Should the right to rebel be supressed or used with due circumstance.

Natural Right? Unless you've got a definition which fits your thesis, you've got huge problems.

In short? No.

Yes

Rebel? Over what?

If all else fails, yes.

Natural urge maybe, noone can say if its a "right" given to you by nature.

Those unjustly deprived of freedom have the right to fight to regain that freedom, yes.

uh....no, I don't think so.

A right, accourding to the operational definition I'm using, is a freedom or action that you can take where the government has little or no authority to interfere.

I don't think there is a government on Earth that would not interfere with rebellious activity.

In the U.S. at least, there is a right to the implements of rebellion, be they weapons, speech, assemble, press, etc. However, actual and active rebellion would not be tolerated by this or any other government, no matter who's running it.

So to directly answer the OP's question: many would argue that there is a natural right to rebellion, though there is still that pesky fact that those rebels would have to take responsibility for their actions and likely have to fight for their lives, natural right or no.

Maybe that's not that direct of an answer after all.

Natural urge maybe, noone can say if its a "right" given to you by nature.
I think it's the case that if you can't stop them, it's a natural right by virtue of necessity. It might not be a social right, but since anyone can rebel in acknowledgement of consequence, however unsuccessfully, it falls under the category of "innate human capability".

If we say that there is a natural right to rebel, then we can also make a point for unlimited natural rights. There is no right that is not founded in one's right to rebel.

However, unlimited natural rights at best run counter what most people consider to be an acceptable system of rights, and at worst is self-contradictory.

It depends on what you're rebelling against.

Does the natural right to rebel exist?
Nature does not grant rights.

If we say that there is a natural right to rebel, then we can also make a point for unlimited natural rights. There is no right that is not founded in one's right to rebel.

However, unlimited natural rights at best run counter what most people consider to be an acceptable system of rights, and at worst is self-contradictory.

some natural rights must be supressed to participate in society. Should rebellion be?

some natural rights must be supressed to participate in society. Should rebellion be?

Society will always suppress rebellion, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for the rebellion.

I don't think rebellion or anything else is a natural right, though. If it is the concept of natural rights is meaningless.

EDIT: That doesn't really answer your question, mainly because I can't get my head to figure the question out.

Society will always suppress rebellion, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for the rebellion.

I don't think rebellion or anything else is a natural right, though. If it is the concept of natural rights is meaningless.

EDIT: That doesn't really answer your question, mainly because I can't get my head to figure the question out.
Generally, when people talk about Natural Rights, they're referring to the ideas of John Locke; ie, we are free to choose do anything we can do that doesn't infringe upon the freedom of other people, and to do that which is sufficient to defend this freedom, and no state laws can overrule this freedom of choice.

Generally, when people talk about Natural Rights, they're referring to the ideas of John Locke; ie, we are free to choose do anything we can do that doesn't infringe upon the freedom of other people, and to do that which is sufficient to defend this freedom, and no state laws can overrule this freedom of choice.

I know, and that makes no sense.

Furthermore, if rebellion is a natural right, then any right people can establish for themselves through rebellion is a natural right, which creates unlimited natural rights, which is contradictory to Locke's idea of natural rights.

But how that specifically answers his question is lost to me.

Furthermore, if rebellion is a natural right, then any right people can establish for themselves through rebellion is a natural right, which creates unlimited natural rights, which is contradictory to Locke's idea of natural rights.I would say that there is only a natural right to rebel when the society makes people worse off than they would be in the state of nature and doesn't let them leave it, either.

Rebellions are just failed revolutions - except in star wars.

Though no-one can stop you from trying. (Though the government will most likely stop you from suceeding).

So I guess in the sense that it is impossible to stop someone from comitting an act of rebellion it is a natural right.

There is no such thing as “natural rights.” There is only what works and what doesn’t work.

:headbang: Of course there isn't! If people have the right to rebel and disobey law surely that means you can't impose law:rolleyes:. (Preferably peaceful) rebellion as a plea for the majority (if we're talking 'bout a democracy) to reconsider their decision is justifiable to an extent...but its not a right! How very silly.

Well, if one agrees with the idea of 'natural rights', then the right to rebel against a government which tramples on your natural rights only makes sense.

Unfortunately, natural law isn't entirely realistic, or enforceable.

Can I just ask whether Wikipedia's definition of a Right seems reasonable to most people here?

A right is the power or liberty to which one is justly entitled or a thing to which one has a just claim.

I would say that there is only a natural right to rebel when the society makes people worse off than they would be in the state of nature and doesn't let them leave it, either.

Why are those contingencies the proper limitations, what is the basis for the right?

I'd say yes, sort of. If the people are deeply unsatisfied with their government, and their voices are going unheard, then yes, there's a "natural right" to rebel.

My definition of a natural right would be a right entitled to you as a human being. As in, the government will give you the right to drive in the form of a Driver's License, but rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc., would fall under natural rights.

If the government infringes upon these rights, then I'd say the right to a peaceful protest comes in. If all else fails, then the people would have the "right" to rebellion and either change leaders, or another system of government that they would prefer...

Lisa Hattersley']Why are those contingencies the proper limitations, what is the basis for the right?Because the purpose of society is to make people better off than they would be in the state of nature. If society fails to do this, then it fails in its purpose.

I think there is a FUNDAMENTAL right to rebel, dunno about 'natural' though.