At what point is it acceptable to take up arms against ones own government?
At what point can you consider things bad enough to consider that a reasonable alternative to protest and negotiation?
>>2289459
>acceptable
>>>
Those who can't hold onto the reigns are unacceptable
>>2289459
>At what point is it acceptable to take up arms against ones own government?
when they fail to provide the benefits of government.
Once you are ready to die for your cause.
If you only incite a revolution then sit back while the tanks roll over others, you are a shitbag and probably French.
>>2289459
when you win
>>2289459
Whenever you think it's necessary to scare them straight.
When the government no longer has the Mandate of Heaven.
>>2289459
When peaceful change is no longer possible.
Good example is Mexico, where the PRI has held power for 75 out of the last 87 years.
The 12 year interim of PAN was much of the same with corruption, bribes and collusion and protection of the cartels.
No one is willing to run against the cartels and the establishment there, for the obvious reason that you will wind up swinging on an overpass.
>>2289516
Kek
>>2289459
At the point where you win this conflict. Until you win you are just a criminal and traitor.
>>2289786
This is the only correct answer here.
>>2289786
this
>>2290416
This. If the Americans had lost the Revolutionary War, they would be rightfully labeled as violent committers of treason. Same with Julius Caesar. If you can gather the popular support and power to overthrow the government, it means the State has failed.
>>2289516
Pretty sure the French fought their own revolution themselves
>>2290610
A bunch of wealthy merchant poofs riled up the commoners then sat in their cafes while the entire country went to shit. They did this repeatedly for generations.
They also decided to take it internationally in the 20th century, and continue this policy of kicking hornetd nests for fun to this day.
>>2289786
But MoH was only used after the fact.