Our Founders lay this case out. There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable. At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Declaration of Independence is not part of our Constitution, which prohibits attempts to overthrow the government.
*Some colonists. Probably not an important distinction, but we should remember history as people loosely coming together instead of always together in a solid decision that way we can understand things like January 6th or the war on Iraq better. In history we have followed our leaders even into bad situations. Saying fuck you to England was a good choice though. 😁
This is a very interesting topic. I actually studied and wrote about it in the 3 months that I was at Harvard before I dropped out. 🤣
Essentially, all of history was taught as it was written from the Kings or rulers. So all of history starts with king blah blah blah and this is what happened. That is how history was recorded through most of US presidents as well. " This is what Lincoln did" is how we learned it in high school.
Only in the past 20 or so years (somebody correct me) have the original documents of citizens and people’s been meta analyzed in a way that we can see history from other (non-white, non-ruler) perspectives.
This, I think, runs right next to CRT and why the right wing and is so concerned about controlling the history books and libraries right now. I think their think tanks are trying to prevent a more accurate version of history from being accepted. I’m not 100% sure about this loose connection though.
Just an accusation from a random guy on the internet.
So, Eastman and the Declaration of Independence and the linked article are on the same page as far as this: There is no “prohibit.” A lot of the world runs on prison rules; more so than may be immediately apparent if you live in a well-ordered first world society. You can try to overthrow the government if you want, because that’s just the reality: You have hands and feet, maybe you have weapons; it’s not like an AI safety mechanism will kick in “FORBIDDEN, I MUST NOT.” You can roll yourself down the road and do whatever you want to do.
But, don’t get all surprised if the government reacts in a certain way.
In other words, yes, you have a revolutionary right to overthrow the government if you really think its abuses have gotten that intractable and grave. But the government has an equal right to stop you, to defend itself or, as we see today, put you on trial if you fail. The American revolutionaries of 1776 knew full well that they were committing treason against the British monarchy. If they lost they would all hang. They accepted that. They didn’t claim that George III had no choice but to let them go.
This is a certain mindset that people can get themselves into when they take for granted systems of justice that protect them: They are allowed to trample all over the system and the rights of other people because of some logic they concocted. But the instant someone starts doing something to them, they forget all about how it’s prison rules, and start screaming about how what the other person is doing is not allowed. Hanging Mike Pence is fine. Shooting Ashleigh Babbitt was a shocking breach of these civilized rules you are supposed to be following. Et cetera. It’s like those people who fight with the police and then get super loud about how their handcuffs are too tight and they need a drink of water. Like, dude, you were the one that opted out.
Yes, John Eastman should get due process. The handcuffs should be a reasonable tightness; that’s an important part of our system even when the suspect tried to run over a state trooper five minutes ago. But also, we should remember everything he had to say about prison rules, if at some point in the future he has something to say about how unfair it all is.
And even if we grant his argument, what “abuses” is he claiming are intolerable?
That if a person with a penis wants to be called a woman, or a person with a vagina wants to be called a man, or a person with either set of genitals wants to be called neither, they should be allowed to?
That everyone in this country deserves to be treated fairly?
That your choice of religious belief doesn’t give you the right to refuse service to others, or grant you some higher station?
That in the time of the greatest wealth disparity in the history of the world, maybe the wealthy shouldn’t have that much money?
That nobody asked to be born, therefore nobody should have to earn their living?
That if the other political party has more votes than you, you don’t get to have control of the government?
That if making it easier to vote means your party gets fewer votes, your party shouldn’t exist?
That in the time of the highest worker productivity in US history, people should have more leisure time?
That all education ought to be government funded, because the ROI for an educated populace is incalculable compared to bankrupting entire generations?
So tell us John, what was so “intolerable” you decided to commit sedition?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Declaration of Independence is not part of our Constitution, which prohibits attempts to overthrow the government.
The Declaration of Independence is a document that explains the political decision to break from England. That’s it.
And July 4th is not the nation’s birthday. It’s simply the day the colonists said fuck you to England.
v1 of USA: 1774 with Continental Association v2: 1777 with Articles of Confederation v3: 1787 with Constitution
*Some colonists. Probably not an important distinction, but we should remember history as people loosely coming together instead of always together in a solid decision that way we can understand things like January 6th or the war on Iraq better. In history we have followed our leaders even into bad situations. Saying fuck you to England was a good choice though. 😁
Let’s take it further. Why is history mostly about politics and warfare? As tho natural history is less important…
This is a very interesting topic. I actually studied and wrote about it in the 3 months that I was at Harvard before I dropped out. 🤣
Essentially, all of history was taught as it was written from the Kings or rulers. So all of history starts with king blah blah blah and this is what happened. That is how history was recorded through most of US presidents as well. " This is what Lincoln did" is how we learned it in high school.
Only in the past 20 or so years (somebody correct me) have the original documents of citizens and people’s been meta analyzed in a way that we can see history from other (non-white, non-ruler) perspectives.
This, I think, runs right next to CRT and why the right wing and is so concerned about controlling the history books and libraries right now. I think their think tanks are trying to prevent a more accurate version of history from being accepted. I’m not 100% sure about this loose connection though.
Just an accusation from a random guy on the internet.
So, Eastman and the Declaration of Independence and the linked article are on the same page as far as this: There is no “prohibit.” A lot of the world runs on prison rules; more so than may be immediately apparent if you live in a well-ordered first world society. You can try to overthrow the government if you want, because that’s just the reality: You have hands and feet, maybe you have weapons; it’s not like an AI safety mechanism will kick in “FORBIDDEN, I MUST NOT.” You can roll yourself down the road and do whatever you want to do.
But, don’t get all surprised if the government reacts in a certain way.
This is a certain mindset that people can get themselves into when they take for granted systems of justice that protect them: They are allowed to trample all over the system and the rights of other people because of some logic they concocted. But the instant someone starts doing something to them, they forget all about how it’s prison rules, and start screaming about how what the other person is doing is not allowed. Hanging Mike Pence is fine. Shooting Ashleigh Babbitt was a shocking breach of these civilized rules you are supposed to be following. Et cetera. It’s like those people who fight with the police and then get super loud about how their handcuffs are too tight and they need a drink of water. Like, dude, you were the one that opted out.
Yes, John Eastman should get due process. The handcuffs should be a reasonable tightness; that’s an important part of our system even when the suspect tried to run over a state trooper five minutes ago. But also, we should remember everything he had to say about prison rules, if at some point in the future he has something to say about how unfair it all is.
Removed by mod
And even if we grant his argument, what “abuses” is he claiming are intolerable?
That if a person with a penis wants to be called a woman, or a person with a vagina wants to be called a man, or a person with either set of genitals wants to be called neither, they should be allowed to?
That everyone in this country deserves to be treated fairly?
That your choice of religious belief doesn’t give you the right to refuse service to others, or grant you some higher station?
That in the time of the greatest wealth disparity in the history of the world, maybe the wealthy shouldn’t have that much money?
That nobody asked to be born, therefore nobody should have to earn their living?
That if the other political party has more votes than you, you don’t get to have control of the government?
That if making it easier to vote means your party gets fewer votes, your party shouldn’t exist?
That in the time of the highest worker productivity in US history, people should have more leisure time?
That all education ought to be government funded, because the ROI for an educated populace is incalculable compared to bankrupting entire generations?
So tell us John, what was so “intolerable” you decided to commit sedition?