Should people who believe the State is evil revolt, or otherwise withdraw from society?

[Winchester]

I think we know which one I'm going to pick.

[Nihil Obstat]

They should read Diuturnum and Libertas.

[Anastasia13]

Yes.

[little2add]

none of the above   

 

[veritasluxmea]

Catholic Roman martyrs, yo. Just because parts of the state are evil doesn't mean the whole thing is bunked. Respect the good and legitimate and resist where it oversteps its authority into God's authority. (and yes Winnie, the state does have some authority over its citizens). 

Edited October 18, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[Ice_nine]

it's an interesting question though, how does an entity receive legitimate authority? I've not got a simple or satisfying answer to this question. At least back in the olden days when you had monarchies it was understood that God gave kings and such the authority to rule over the people (like it or not) but with modern states it gets a lot more hairy. Why do we recognize some government entities and not others? What legitimizes them as something other than a criminal enterprise (we can at least agree that modern government bodies are at least sometimes guilty of operating in a criminal way, even if you believe they are mostly good).

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Rulers, whether monarchs or parliaments, do rule by the will and consent of God. That does not change. There can be situations which are difficult, yes. Like when the Republic of China was in exile in Taiwan and the PRC ruled the mainland. Or the French Revolution. But in principle the state has a right to rule and we have a duty to respect it. In general terms.

[Ice_nine]

doesn't seem to answer my question. If I raise up a rebel army and stomp so much face that I'm able to take control over a number of people does that make me a ruler and would I become "the state."? So all of the worst dictators were legitimate rulers?

At what point does a violent entity cease to be just another violent body of people and become "the state"?

[Lilllabettt]

I think we know which one I'm going to pick.

which one did you pick?

[Nihil Obstat]

 

doesn't seem to answer my question. If I raise up a rebel army and stomp so much face that I'm able to take control over a number of people does that make me a ruler and would I become "the state."? So all of the worst dictators were legitimate rulers?

At what point does a violent entity cease to be just another violent body of people and become "the state"?

I am not sure yet. But ultimately I am not sure it matters. It provides several difficult, isolated cases. I do not think it particularly challenges the general principles.

[Ice_nine]

 

But ultimately I am not sure it matters.

But it would matter if and when your government is overthrown by another, or when the zombies come.

[Nihil Obstat]

But it would matter if and when your government is overthrown by another, or when the zombies come.

Yes, then it would. And it would have mattered during the American revolution, and the French revolution. And it probably matters in the Sudan right now, and in in North Korea. But I think those issues are fairly minor with regards to the wider issue of legitimate governance. Those issues do not touch the principle of the matter which is that the state does have a right to rule, and we have an obligation to submit to rightful rulers. It is like when we talk about lying. All things being equal, we should not lie. It is not a challenge to that general principle if we find specific instances where deception of a broad sort is permissible or even obligatory.

[Amppax]

which one did you pick?

The last option, clearly. 

[Freedom]

Other

[MIKolbe]

no matter what they do, they are still part of the system...

 

have none of you seen the matrix?????????????????