What would your government do

[Sean Hayden]

If it faced a real threat from a minority of its own people who were being helped by other countries? Is this a relevant question to what's going on in Syria?

[JimC]

With general agreement that Assad is an anything-but-benevolent dictator, the rebellion against him is in a time-honoured tradition. But then, those fighting against Assad for reasonable motives have been joined by a very nasty collection of Islamist scum, as well as being embroiled in super power geopolitical rivalry. A witch's brew with disastrous effects on the general population...

Given that, a valid comparison to a minority threat (aided from elsewhere) to a democratically elected government is rather hard to make...

[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.

[pErvinalia]

If it faced a real threat from a minority of its own people who were being helped by other countries? Is this a relevant question to what's going on in Syria?

I guess it depends on what the "help" was and what the minority were up to. We have some sort of treason laws here (not sure exactly what they are; Hermit will fill in the details ), so if it was seditious behaviour then I suppose we'd lock them up. Thanks to draconian anti-terrorist laws enacted by most western countries after 11/9 ( ), if the government couldn't come up with any specific laws that were broken, they could just declare them terrorists and lock them up that way.

[Sean Hayden]

And if it should escalate beyond the capabilities of your law enforcement, would they surrender?

[JimC]

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.

[pErvinalia]

And if it should escalate beyond the capabilities of your law enforcement, would they surrender?

Would law enforcement surrender? I don't know. Here, and I imagine in most other western countries, we never really consider the possibility of a fracturing of the state into government, military, and police. But it does happen in plenty of countries, including some of our near neighbours. I would tend to think that the government, military and police would stay united as one, and either fight or surrender together.

[Sean Hayden]

Well, it's unlikely a real threat could come without fractures. But that hardly seems relavent.

[pErvinalia]

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.

[pErvinalia]

Well, it's unlikely a real threat could come without fractures. But that hardly seems relavent.

Well it is relevant to whether they (whoever "they" is after a fracture) would surrender.

[Sean Hayden]

Okay, so they surrender together. But before that they fight.

[pErvinalia]

They definitely would.

[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?

[JimC]

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.

[Animavore]

The IRA would probably just shoot their kneecaps.