On the 4th of July each year, the forcible removable of an illegitimate British regime is celebrated in the United States of America where it is generally agreed that this act of rebellion was justified and necessary. And the irony that such profound disobedience to the state’s authority is honored by reciting pledges to obey the flag of another is entirely lost somewhere in all those fireworks. ‘Resistance’ still has its place in the US of today, of course — one just needs to acquire a permit that is appropriate for the particular type of rebellious activity 30 days or so in advance of the date one plans to dissent. During the so-called Arab Spring, US politicians and the media commentariat applauded revolts in several Muslim nations and even the dubiously labeled ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria were mostly cast in a positive light. However, not all revolutions are televised equally. In 1945 and ’56, for example, uprisings by Vietnamese and Cuban communists were vigorously frowned upon in US media, whereas the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico during the ’90s was ignored entirely — why? That question, of course, has social, historical, and political answers. This article, however, is meant to pose a more fundamental question with a potentially dangerous answer — when is it okay to overthrow your government?

To Revolt or Not to Revolt ?

…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [the People’s Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

— The US Declaration of Independence

That is the question — when does revolution become necessary? What are the acceptable reasons for revolt? These questions can be uncomfortable or even hazardous to ask — but, if the history of states teaches anything, it is that not asking them is more dangerous. In turning the pages of history, it is clear that some revolts were absolutely necessary and that others did more harm than good. The mass upheavals that broke the European monarchies and abolished divine rights to rulership for the more-easily restrained rule of written law seems likely to have been for the best. And other revolutions — like the fascists’ overthrow of the Spanish Republic during the 1930’s — clearly did not end in the favor of most people unlucky enough to be involved or even nearby. In some parts of history, a solid revolt would have probably been fantastic and yet none appeared. Prior to the Nazi’s tragically success in ethnically cleansing large swaths of Europe, for example, might have been a great time for a regime-change.

Whether fruitful or catastrophic, revolution has always split and sculpted the branches of human civilization and — right or wrong — the decision to revolt or not to revolt will continue to shape the future of our history. So think — : when so many possible futures hinge on the sum of our answers to the question, would it not be recklessly stupid and irresponsible to refuse to ask it?

Legitimate & Illegitimate Authority:

Authorization is a Matter of Consent

Imagine: an adult reaching out and seizing a child’s arm to restrain her because she was about to run into the street directly in front of an oncoming bus. This is an example of legitimate authority. Everybody knows kids are not allowed to run into traffic and most adults will spontaneously and temporarily claim the authority needed to enforce that rule, even if the child is a stranger. This legitimacy is rooted in the existence of a general consent to actions that prevent harm even if the action temporarily eclipses a person’s autonomy — an adult has legitimate authority to ‘arrest’ children who are about to seriously injure themselves or others. This “choice of evils” defense can even be used in the courtroom. Breaking into a burning house to rescue someone trapped inside is unlikely to end with a conviction for burglary because society recognizes the person’s authority to enter as legitimate authority regardless of burglary or trespassing laws.

Though seizing control of a child stepping into traffic is legitimate, curtailing her ability to move around freely is typically not legitimate. If a child’s physical movements are being controlled by another person too often, it would be child-abuse and most people would agree that her overly-controlling guardian’s authority is now illegitimate. Though society tends to give fewer rights to them, children’s basic autonomy over their own bodies is typically one of them. Even younglings have a right to jump around, make silly faces, and cause a reasonable degree of trouble. Forcibly controlling bodies other than your own is not usually authorized without reason — it is illegitimate authority.

Legitimate authority arises from relations of consent and illegitimate authority arises from those devoid of consent.

Users of Authority Bear the Responsibility

Of Proving Their Authority is Legitimate

Since it would be absurd to ask everyone who is restrained to prove they are not, in fact, a child running in front of a bus, it is the responsibility of the one claiming the authority to justify it. Since restraining others is usually not allowed, the person doing the restraining must prove their use of authority is legitimate or accept the consequences of their action. The sheriff’s badge was supposed to serve this function — to be a sign of the public’s consent to a person carrying out special kinds of actions, not a sign of immunity from public retribution for violent antisocial organizations, as it does today.

Legitimate authority, such as preventing our children from becoming roadkill, is spontaneous and necessary. Illegitimate authority, such as restraining another person with no acceptable reason, destroys the bonds of mutuality that bind human society together and must be dismantled for that reason. Determining consent is therefore crucial — but how is consent determined in more complex relations of authority, such as between a state and a population?

The Consent of the Governed

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”

— UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21

To claim legitimate authority, a state must obtain consent from the people being subjected to the authority. Since it is impossible for anyone to go door-to-door asking for an entire population’s consent, methods for measuring consent at a large-scale — stuff like polling, popular referendum, election, representation, delegation, etc — must be devised. Some systems are better than others and multiple methods tend to have better results but, setting aside the debate over methods, a clear distinction exists between systems that seek consent and those that fail to. At the moment, elections are the most common way of measuring levels of mass-consent and, while better and more participatory systems can and should be devised, for now electoral systems remain crucial for determining the legitimacy of a state’s authority

Democratic Processes: The Measure of Mass-Consent

If democratic processes measure levels of mass-consent to a state’s authority and if legitimate authority arises from consent, then a legitimate state cannot exercise authority over a people without proofs of mass-consent. Not everyone can agree on every issue — but an informed population with a meaningfully democratic process can still maximize levels of consent among the greatest number of people. A legitimate government must therefore ensure that the governed have as much opportunity as possible to give, withhold, or withdraw consent to its policies.

Legitimate Regimes Display Clear Proof of Mass-Consent

If people cannot freely give and withdraw consent, then a state’s very existence is arbitrary use of authority — which, incidentally, is the literal definition of tyranny. Authorities that will not even pretend to seek consent are obviously disqualified. Military dictatorships and monarchies based on any variation of a “divine right-to-rule” can never be legitimate. Since any oligarch or autocrat can claim they possess the masses’ consent, clear proof is the only legitimacy.

The only state with legitimate authority is a state that provides clear proofs of mass-consent.

The mere existence of voting-booths is not proof that consent exists in the same way that a dinner-plate is not proof that food exists in the pantry. There must be clear proof that people are able to use the voting-booths freely and that there is a general consent to how the voting-process works. The mere existence of an election is not proof of consent — there must be clear proof that its results are true and the public should be able to verify their integrity in every way.

Clear proof is the only legitimacy.

The Human Right to Dismantle Illegitimate Authority

History leaves no room to doubt that grave harm follows tyranny like a shadow. To prevent that great harm of despotism from being inflicted upon society, the people have every right to decide against any regime that cannot or will not justify their authority with proofs of consent. Unless and until proofs of consent are furnished, it is a legitimate use of authority for a people to take revolutionary action to dismantle the state. From the rebel Inca fighting Spanish tyranny and the self-liberation of Haitian slaves to the waves of revolt that overthrew the European monarchies, the authority of states is revealed to be relative. Looking back down to the roots of history, we do not honor or recognize the authority claimed by kings or slave-drivers but we intuitively recognize the authority of the slave and of the peasant rebellions against because this authority is absolute.

Dangerous Answers to Scary Questions

Past rebellions lifted the human species from beneath the boot of gods and emperors, broke the chain of absolute rulership, and pried human rights from the grip of autocrat and oligarch — but the human revolution is unfinished. It’s true there fewer emperors today but there are still empires and police-states. Just look at what the bastards did at Standing Rock — what did the consent of indigenous communities mean to them? Watch what happens to whistle-blowers who inform the public about how the state’s authority is used. Like thieves who cannot leave the shelter of darkness without being found out, the political leadership in the United States can never embrace openness and transparency.

Elections are held in black-box machines as the candidates are bought and sold on the markets of campaign finance in broad daylight. Unpopular representatives are elected again and again by less than 1/3rd of the public on voting-machines that cannot be audited. What type of consent can exist if just 1/10th of a population, vetted by privately-owned yet publicly-funded parties, select 2 nominees for half of the remaining 9/10ths to choose between? Even then, 2 of the last 3 presidents were the candidates who recieved fewer votes than the other. But, if the public dislikes such a system, they just need to vote to change it, right?

Today is the 4th of July — independence day. How many of you will stand to honor the anthem of a nation that oppresses you? And if it doesn’t oppress you personally, will you honor a nation that oppresses your neighbor?

Can it be said plainly or does that cross the line? Let’s find out — the authority of the people in charge of the United States is illegitimate and its people would be totall justified in struggling to topple the regime by whatever means they please.

In solidarity,

John Laurits