Good cop fears his fellow cops

[bilby]

Saying the people have a right to revolution is not saying that a revolution is legal. What is legal is clearly and explicitly whatever the government says is legal, that is the definition of legal. No government ever makes it legal to oppose the government, making all revolutions illegal.

The questions of "what is right?" and "what is legal?" are two different questions.

Of course. And the question of 'what is right?' and 'what is A right?' are also two different questions.

A right can be granted by law - eg 'The Bill of Rights'; or it can be a 'natural right' held to be self-evident by the people.

Neither of those forms of right existed for rebels prior to about 1200CE. Arguably, they did not even exist prior to the late 1700s. Even the oppressed peasants of the middle ages believed that their place was ordained by God; The idea that one could rebel at all - or even complain too loudly - was both rare and dangerous for most people, for most of history.

 

[WAB]

Saying the people have a right to revolution is not saying that a revolution is legal. What is legal is clearly and explicitly whatever the government says is legal, that is the definition of legal. No government ever makes it legal to oppose the government, making all revolutions illegal.

The questions of "what is right?" and "what is legal?" are two different questions.

Indeed. On the old board, FRDB, I joined in various and sundry discussions about that distinction. The word 'right' as I used it - as you know of course - is distinct from the way you used it in your last sentence, and also from how you used it in your first para. The phrase "what is right?" is different from "what is a right?, as you know. **And as I see bilby has said.

I have a right to vote. But some people think - as did the late George Carlin - that it's right (or simply alright) not to vote, for example. I think it's alright not to vote, as a right is not a duty, which I believe you'd agree with. Some people think the right to vote is a duty, and some think it's a privilege, when it's neither.

I think a woman should have the right to have an abortion, that it should be legal; but whether she thinks it's right is for her to decide, as well as (hopefully the hubby or at least an upstanding gentleman) the sperm donor.

As for a people claiming the right to throw off the shackles of oppression, tyranny, or bondage: I say they have that right, whether it's legal or not.

But you're right, bilby, lots of Amerikans aren't aware of the rest of the world. At least the ones I intervene with on a daily basis. They are convinced that the world consists of a smartphone, a beach, a recreational vehicle, and a can of beer.

And the nearest tattoo parlor.

 

[WAB]

Saying the people have a right to revolution is not saying that a revolution is legal. What is legal is clearly and explicitly whatever the government says is legal, that is the definition of legal. No government ever makes it legal to oppose the government, making all revolutions illegal.

The questions of "what is right?" and "what is legal?" are two different questions.

Indeed. On the old board, FRDB, I joined in various and sundry discussions about that distinction. The word 'right' as I used it - as you know of course - is distinct from the way you used it in your last sentence, and also from how you used it in your first para. The phrase "what is right?" is different from "what is a right?, as you know. **And as I see bilby has said.

I have a right to vote. But some people think - as did the late George Carlin - that it's right (or simply alright) not to vote, for example. I think it's alright not to vote, as a right is not a duty, which I believe you'd agree with. Some people think the right to vote is a duty, and some think it's a privilege, when it's neither.

I think a woman should have the right to have an abortion, that it should be legal; but whether she thinks it's right is for her to decide, as well as (hopefully the hubby or at least an upstanding gentleman) the sperm donor.

As for a people claiming the right to throw off the shackles of oppression, tyranny, or bondage: I say they have that right, whether it's legal or not.

But you're right, bilby, lots of Amerikans aren't aware of the rest of the world. At least the ones I intervene with on a daily basis. They are convinced that the world consists of a smartphone, a beach, a recreational vehicle, and a can of beer.

And the nearest tattoo parlor.

I retract that. Objectively speaking, and if the world news is any indication, the rest of the word is just as ignorant and stupid as the average American.

 

[fast]

Criminals have no such job as you state. If there is an injustice within the justice system, it's still the justice system to which we turn when seeking justice.

No that's absurd. If a system is unjust or oppressive etc the people need to overthrow it not give it legitimacy by turning to it.

I'm not talking about an unjust system. I'm talking about a system that is just. Instances of wrong doing by individuals or even instances of corruption among groups of individuals doesn't by itself make a system unjust. Neither a cup of water nor a gallon make a canoe sink. It takes more than a few bad apples, and it takes more than interoffice collusion to say that the system itself has wrong doing at its aim.

Whether the overall justice system in America is so far gone that only a revolution can bring a cure, I cannot say, although my suspicion is that the wrongs (vast as they might be) are probably not so vast that a revolution is warranted.

A revolution? Really? Maybe the fearful cop, in the story cited, is being treated unjustly, and maybe the good ole boys will be a little slow to react should his life ever become in danger. Yeah, there's room for improvement in this great justice system of ours, but we don't turn to criminals for justice.

We turn to them and the media for inciting riots.