Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions.
This poll doesn't highlight polarization. It highlights polling minus a clue.
Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
> What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I’m surprised it’s so low.
> Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions.
> ...Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
Also you have to remember the America was literally founded with "violence against the government" [aka the British Crown]. To answer "no" to that poll question is to basically reject American independence.
>While a 2015 survey found no significant partisan divide when it comes to the question of justified violence against the government, the new poll identified a sharper rise on the right — with 40 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents saying it can be acceptable. The view was held by 23 percent of Democrats, the survey finds.
It also specifies "against the government" which is way different than against fellow citizens. This is basically asking if you think citizens have a right to fight against perceived tyranny. Republicans and Independents skew anti-government in general
not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.
I would say the opposite. Violence is always justified against a non-democratic government (virtually all governments historically), as non-democratic governments have no basis for legitimacy other than having been the most successful at applying violence.
Second reason is, I don't think most non-democratic governments hold power due to application of violence (few exceptions, mostly small). If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them, they've done so in the past. The reason they don't is that they see the government as legitimate, even if not democratic. Basically the same way corporations work. Very few are democratic, but they're not really upheld by physical force. The Catholic Church still has non-democratic legitimacy over a billion people. Clearly that's not because of the 500 Swiss Guard members in the Vatican.
That is utterly untrue. Have you seen the "Tank Man" photo [1]?
Their interests as defined by who if not the constituency themselves? Legitimacy comes only from the consent of the governed, i.e. democracy.
I mean that’s almost tautological, right? There’s only the barest of lines between “sovereign authority” and “governing”.
The key is that you replace the authority with one that doesn’t justify violence. (Which I’m not saying is trivial, but lots of groups have done it reasonably well.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a...
Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics?
To a new breed of globalists, yes. Populism is a bad word now, remember?