Rebellion has proven itself to be the deciding factor in the histories of many of the world’s governments, being the last ditch effort of the citizen to change the machinations of their society. Whether the government likes it or not, the right to rebellion is a right of the people, and one that cannot be taken away no matter the amount of oppression. The only way for a citizen to rebel is for them to “refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually [Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, pg 15].” Only through the violation of one’s social contract with their government and the removal of themselves from it can they actively take steps to harm the State without the act becoming a self-destructive movement. The method of rebellion is unimportant, because the “Reasons for rebellion do seem to change,
in fact, with periods and civilizations [Camus, The Rebel, pg 158].” The only thing of any importance is the idea
that the rebels know that they are no longer part of the State, and will from
then on never be allowed to be part of that particular State again.
The government, on the other hand, still needs to respond to the rebellion, and the
obvious response is resistance. It would not behoove the State to submit to the rebellion’s demands, as that would simply bolster them, giving the rebels a victory over the government. My question is that if a government’s duty is to provide a stable platform for their subjects, what should their stance then
be, since submission will make them weak, and retaliation will vilify them?
Nice work, Pippin. And sorry all of us forgot to comment. I would disagree with you when you say that rebellion is the act of violating a social contract. Studying Arendt, Thoreau, and Camus has made me thing that it is in a citizen's social contract to rebel if the government is no longer just, in order to help the society as a whole. I don't have an answer to your question, it's a really good one. It seems like there really isn't a way for the government to come out on top in a situation of civil disobedience. I think the best thing to do would be to treat the civil disobedience sort of like imput in the public sphere. The government should take that imput from the citizens and modify laws accordingly.
ReplyDeleteYeah sorry about that pippin! Really great respons! You covered a lot here! I would agree with Leah. Government should accept the disobedience as a tool to help them satisfy the citizens needs. Then again if the governmenf chooses to fight the civil disobedience than it is only right that it falls and a new one is formed. We join a social contract for our individual well-being, and if that contract is not to our standards, it is our job to either join another, or alter the one we originally joined. The alteration begins with rebellion. Maybe I'm confused and answered this question or one of you guys have, but how does government address the opposing sides of rebellion? Obviously you can't rebel unless there is another arguing side. Right?
ReplyDelete* actually how should government adrress it?
ReplyDelete