What would your government do

[cronus]

As that Canadian singer observed. There comes a time when you see disaster looming close and say 'Let's Roll.'

I wouldn't 'Roll' and I wouldn't be on the plane either. That's what I'd do. Be in another country and watch the show on TV with some potato chips and relative safety.

[rainbow]

If it faced a real threat from a minority of its own people who were being helped by other countries?

Like Russia helping Trump win an election?

I can't imagine.

Maybe build a wall?

[pErvinalia]

As that Canadian singer observed. There comes a time when you see disaster looming close and say 'Let's Roll.'

I wouldn't 'Roll' and I wouldn't be on the plane either. That's what I'd do. Be in another country and watch the show on TV with some potato chips and relative safety.

That was particularly incoherent, even by your standards.

[cronus]

As that Canadian singer observed. There comes a time when you see disaster looming close and say 'Let's Roll.'

I wouldn't 'Roll' and I wouldn't be on the plane either. That's what I'd do. Be in another country and watch the show on TV with some potato chips and relative safety.

That was particularly incoherent, even by your standards.

Read it slowly. That's the way to digest fresh ideas.

[Scot Dutchy]

A democratically elected government

What definition of democracy are you using? Here is the basic one:

No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, political freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics.[9][10] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.[11][12] Other uses of "democracy" include that of direct democracy.

One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: upward control (sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority), political equality, and social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality.[13]

In how many so called democracies is that true? The UK is out as it does not have a constitution and it has a non elected chamber.

[JimC]

It's all relative. Most western countries, whatever the minor shortcomings one might observe in their electoral processes, can be called democracies in comparison with, say, Assad's Syria...

[Scot Dutchy]

Well anything compared to Syria will be a democracy even America.

[Sean Hayden]

Sure, but we only have to imagine the possibility of a real threat to our governments in order to speculate about what they may do to ensure their survival.

They key, if you want to stick to your comparison with Syria, is to consider whether there are ethical differences between a democratic government resisting an internal challenge by an armed and foreign supported minority vs a dictatorship facing something similar.

To me, you seem to be implying that any government will use whatever military force it can muster to defeat an internal rebellion. That may be true, but it doesn't answer the ethical conundrum I posed above.

Maybe it's not the conundrum you think it is. I certainly don't see that a democratically elected government has an obvious and just reason to use the military against it's own citizens that a dictator would not also have. It is as though you are saying that by virtue of the fact you are a dictator: you must resign.

Even a dictator can be right about resisting a revolution, or is it really just that simple: dictator bad, revolution good?

The argument would go as follows:

A democratically elected government should, in general, have the support of the majority of its citizens. To make it clear cut, let's say that the government in question, after the election, has well conducted polls (by a free press) which confirm at least 60% support for its policies, maybe 30% against and the usual undecided. Let's assume that a proportion of the 30% virulently opposes those policies for whatever reason, and decides to engage in armed rebellion, aided, armed and funded by a like-minded, hostile foreign government. They are clearly a minority trying to enforce their views on the majority by force, and most people would accept that an armed response by government would be appropriate, with the usual caveats of strenuous efforts to avoid civilian casualties (a concept foreign to Assad, BTW)

By any usual definition, a dictatorship does not usually have majority support, at least in terms of legitimate voting processes. Additionally, a dictator's armed forces typically keeps control by the brutal exercise of force against the populace. Armed struggles against oppression of a majority by an undemocratic minority have a long history, whether successful or not, and, given some caveats about the means used, could reasonably be seen to be an ethical response.

Yes of course, democracy is the legitimate government, and therefore everything else is not. --how convenient

Putting aside questions about how democracy supposedly gets its legitimacy e.g. consent of the governed –goosebumps-- maybe it’s possible that something other than the type of governments in question can inform our ethical reasoning about resisting revolutions.

I think we can at least attempt to see things from another perspective, even one so vile as the undemocratic viewpoint. --shudder--

[pErvinalia]

There's only one ethical reasoning that matters: Might is right.

[Sean Hayden]

[Sean Hayden]

If it faced a real threat from a minority of its own people who were being helped by other countries?

Like Russia helping Trump win an election?

I can't imagine.

Maybe build a wall?

[pErvinalia]

Just blame the Democrats. Simples.

[laklak]

Lord Yoshi Toranaga: There are no 'mitigating circumstances' when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.

John Blackthorne: Unless you win.

[mistermack]

To discount the government of Syria on democratic grounds is a bit silly.

There are no democratic countries in the region.

Turkey has savagely responded against the Kurdish attempts to fight the government. And have been doing so for years, and still are. They didn't get the same treatment as Syria.

Spain have locked up the Catalans who tried to split. Nobody is on their case.

The US showed what they would do at Waco. And quite right too.

Assad has every right to fight the insurgents, and by most unbiased reports, he has huge support in the country.
It's only the west that wanted him out, to be replaced by a US puppet, dancing to Israel's tune.

[Joe]

Sure, but we only have to imagine the possibility of a real threat to our governments in order to speculate about what they may do to ensure their survival.

They key, if you want to stick to your comparison with Syria, is to consider whether there are ethical differences between a democratic government resisting an internal challenge by an armed and foreign supported minority vs a dictatorship facing something similar.

To me, you seem to be implying that any government will use whatever military force it can muster to defeat an internal rebellion. That may be true, but it doesn't answer the ethical conundrum I posed above.

The thing is, while we couldn't imagine this sort of thing happening in Australia, it's fairly easy to imagine it happening in the US (although, I doubt they'd get any foreign help, unless perhaps was nefarious means) with their libertarian streak and 2nd amendment.

This is actually a debate I used to have with Seth a lot. He used to bleat on about overthrowing a tyrannous government if the constitution was legally amended to repeal the 2nd amendment or alter it significantly. He views it as tyranny, and he would consider himself a freedom fighter, but it's by definition not unconstitutional. He claimed that it would be unconstitutional, and I offered the scenario where the judiciary decided that it actually was constitutional; how would he react? Well he'd consider it tyrannical anyway and that the judiciary was being equally tyrannical. It's a circular argument, but that's how some of these nutters think. So I guess this highlights that not all "freedom fighters" are necessarily freedom fighters. They might just be ideological nut cases.

An insurrection in the mainland US would face serious obstacles, given the number of military bases spread across the country, and the fact that our military has been conducting counterinsurgency operations for decades. A couple of academics actually came up with a scenario a while back:

How it could go down

An extreme right-wing militia takes over the town of Darlington, South Carolina, placing the mayor under house arrest and disbanding the city council. Local police are disarmed or are sympathetic to the militia's cause and integrated into the militia.

The rebels choke traffic on interstates 95 and 20, collecting "tolls" to fund their arsenal and operation. Militiamen also stop rail lines and detain anyone who protests their actions.

The insurgents use social media and press conferences to invoke the Declaration of Independence as their rationale, arguing they have the right to "alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, 'shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'"

Because of this, they enjoy a "groundswell" of support from similarly-minded locals throughout the state. The mayor contacts the governor and his congressman. The governor doesn't call out the National Guard for fear they'd side with the militiamen. He monitors the situation using the State Police but through aides, he asks the federal government to step in and restore order, but cannot do so publicly.

The President of the United States gives the militia 15 days to disperse.

Mobilizing a response

The executive branch first calls the state National Guard to federal service. The Joint Staff alerts the U.S. Northern Command who orders U.S. Army North/Fifth U.S. Army to form a joint task force headquarters. Local units go on alert - in this case, the U.S. Army at Forts Bragg and Stewart in North Carolina and Georgia, respectively, and Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

The Fifth Army begins its mission analysis and intelligence preparation of the battlefield. This includes locating enemy bases, critical infrastructure, terrain, potential weather, and other important information.

Once the Fifth Army commander has a complete picture of the militia's behavior patterns, deployments of forces, and activity inside the town, he begins a phased deployment of federal forces.

Civilian control of the military

The Fifth Army is in command of the military forces, but the Department of Justice is still the lead federal agency in charge on the ground. The Attorney General can designate a Senior Civilian Representative of the Attorney General (SCRAG) to coordinate all federal agencies and has the authority to assign missions to federal military forces. The Attorney General may also appoint a Senior Federal Law Enforcement Officer to coordinate federal law enforcement activities.

It's interesting to note that many of the Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens still apply to those in arms against the government. For instance, federal judges will still have to authorize wiretaps on rebel phones during all phases of the federal response.

Troops on the ground will be aware of local, national, and international media constantly watching them and that every incidence of gunfire will likely be investigated.

Beginning combat operations

Combat units will begin show of force operations against militiamen to remind the rebels they're now dealing with the actual United States military. Army and Marine Corps units will begin capturing and dismantling the checkpoints and roadblocks held by the militia members.

All federal troops will use the minimum amount of force, violence, and numbers necessary. Only increasing to put pressure on the insurrectionist leaders.

After dismantling checkpoints, soldiers and Marines will recapture critical infrastructure areas in the city, such as water and power stations, as well as TV and radio stations and hospitals.

Meanwhile, state law enforcement and activated National Guard units will care for the fleeing and residents of the city. This is partly for political reasons, allowing the government most susceptible to local voters to be seen largely absent from being in direct, sometimes armed conflict with their own elected officials.

Restoring government control

Federal troops will maintain law and order on the streets of the city as elected officials return to their offices. Drawing on U.S. military history, the government will likely give individual members of the militia a general amnesty while prosecuting the leaders and those who broke the law during the uprising.

As for Seth, I doubt he'd be manning the barricades, his ridiculous bluster not withstanding.