In a Democratic Society, When is it Just to Work Outside the System (ie Rebellion) for Change?

[BrentWil]

Let me say, I define "work outside the system" as doing actions that run against the democratically established legal system. I mentioned rebellion to give an example, but there are other methods that are outside the legal system.

Also, democracy is defined as

Democracy : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

I would suggest with all our problems the US falls under this definition. With that said, that brings me to the question.

Given that people have the right to vote and the society is GENERALLY ran as one in which the citizens elect those who represent them, when is it okay to go outside the system in that society?

[roody]

1. I don't live in a democratic society.

[OKNancy]

2. Do you mean break the law?

If so, you have to decide if it is worth the consequences. Some may call you a martyr for the cause and some may call you a criminal.
Each person has to decide.

[TBF]

3. IMO it's the only way to work -

I think OWS is on the right track ... non-violent resistance and they added leaderless organization which is brilliant. Now the trick is to unionize service jobs and get those folks in the street. We can't do this without labor. Movements are the only thing that has ever changed things in a serious way and you need numbers to be effective. For example the civil rights legislation - it took years of protesting to get to that point.

[The Traveler]

4. I always found this to be a good answer ...

" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

And, I have to say, I think we are moving dangerously close to that zone.

It's good to re-read this from time to time ...

[link:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html|

Trav

[CAPHAVOC]

5. Takes a long time.

This system takes a long time to change. The speed of communication nowdays makes it seem even longer. We just have to keep clawing away at it. We should hope Churchill was right when he said. "Americans aways do the right thing after we try everything else." I sure do, because I think we are now trying everything else.

[dogknob]

6. The US is a company town.

Laws are made by the rich to protect the rich. Voting is owned.

Either we suck it up or get out from under...

[TheKentuckian]

7. This seems close to where we are.

We have elections but only among company pre-filtered candidates, who debate within the company approved spectrum, they must come from the preapproved company owned parties who are both official state parties despite never being mentioned in the Constitution, generally the individuals must be wealthy or at least willing and able to raise money from the company, and must be approved by the lock, stock, and barrel owned company media.

Despite that level of systemic control, on occasion the company elects to override the results further in their favor, which partisans of the unofficial "official" state parties make viceral, passionate, and contextually silly excuses for rather than daring to to hold accountable those who override the will of the people even after passing through the "if->then" gauntlet the system permits.

[Luminous Animal]

8. In our democratic society it is always just...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Society is predicated on the consent of the governed.

If the system, (call it "democratic society" for discussion sake) no longer reflects, indicates or communicates the informed consent of the governed, then you must circumvent that system to show the withdrawal of your consent.

The starting point for that process is civil disobedience.

[limpyhobbler]

10. Please don't conflate peaceful resistance with rebellion. nt.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Peaceful resistance is to rebellion

... as medical exam is to surgery.

If the former goes badly, the latter becomes necessary.

[BrentWil]

12. Many of the successful would disagree...

For example, Gandhi.

[Posteritatis]

17. The metaphorical former did not go badly in his case. (nt)

[LadyHawkAZ]

18. Do you mind if I borrow that?

That's the best description I've heard yet.

[loyalsister]

13. I would say always

But, another relevant question is whether one can reasonably expect to achieve desired results. Of course that evaluation would include many variables.
I say it's always okay but not always reasonable. There are many ways of working within the system that are too readily rejected. I think both measures have validity and can compliment each other as they did during the women's movement, civil Rights movement, and disability rights movement. All included legislation and civil disobedience. All have continued with working to get interested parties elected and continued efforts to strengthen policies. Some civil actions continue.

[ashling]

14. I love your answer

When I saw the thread I knew I wanted to keep an eye on it for stuff for my government class. I think I have found it - if you don't mind.

[loyalsister]

16. Sure

I'm glad to offer something useful.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. What's your opinion, OP?

Most of us look to Dr King, Ghandi, our own experiences in say, the gay rights or pro-choice areas where there is legislation and also protest and other actions. I'd not call them Rebellion at all, still they are outside the political system.
Words mean specific things. A 'Rebellion' is always an opposition to authority, the word is most often used to for armed resistance and most specifically for FAILED armed resistance. That is, a Rebellion is the word for a Revolution that did not 'take'. Had our Colonies failed in our attempt at independence, our American Revolution would get called the American Colonial Rebellion.
So I think you are playing with poorly chosen words, it is hard to tell without your own opinion up front.

[Taverner]

19. Do you mean vandalism? I can think of many cases

Do you mean violence (that is, harming another PERSON)? Then almost never.

I do not agree with "The Propaganda of the Deed"

[white_wolf]

21. From what (admittedly) little of I've read of the term "Propaganda of the Deed..."

it seems to be something it is often used as a justification for the use of terrorism, which is something I think we all oppose.

[Taverner]

22. Yes, it is.

It is mostly an Anarchist justification of violence or murder, in order to spur a revolution. The Unabomber's bombs are a good example of that.

[white_wolf]

23. As the Islamic fundamentalists will eventually learn-

the use of terror will eventually turn even your supporters against your cause.

[Taverner]

24. It happened when Leon Czolgosz tried it

And the end result was Emma Goldman being deported, despite the fact she had nothing to do with it

[backscatter712]

20. When we're not living in a democracy, but a corrupt oligarchy with a thin "democratic" veneer. n/t

[Zalatix]

25. How about civil disobedience? Does that qualify as a rebellion?

[Starry Messenger]

26. Populist pressure in public has always been used to effect societal change.

It moves the system of representation to reflect public opinion. The results of elections are important too, but they are more of a result of how society is feeling. The two parts need each other to function properly.