You think we should still be speaking English, since we were not under a dictatorship in the 1770s, nor under foreign occupation (we were part of the country.)
I consider colonies to be countries under foreign occupation. Granted, the colonial status of the US was a bit obscure, since the colonists were not members of the indigenous population, but the lack of representation in the home government was of course an issue.
I'm not convinced that we'd be worse off if we still spoke English, though of course it is a "what if" situation.
Recent history, around the world, demonstrates that even a very repressive government can be effectively toppled by an unarmed populace, and that unarmed rebellion can often be more effective that armed rebellion. Soldiers will often refuse to fire on their unarmed countrymen, a distinction they are unlikely to apply to people who are shooting at them. I'm not convinced that the highly theoretical value of the principle of justified armed resistance is enough to offset the very real possibility that that principle could be used to justify armed rebellion in cases where the cause is less than compelling to any but those who are rebelling.
An amusing hypothetical example that struck me while fetching my daughter. Imagine that a President was elected with a minority of the popular vote, and won the electoral vote only through what the aggrieved group perceived as a judicial coup d'etat. Suppose that this government implemented rules aimed at forcing pregnant women to give birth, which many women see as a direct violation of their right to determine what is done with their bodies. Suppose that this government packed the courts with people of like mind, restricting peaceful redress.
Would the aggrieved women be justified in taking up arms against the State? |
