One could similarly ask, "is it ever justified to challenge the theological interpretations of the Pope?"
From a positive point of view, violence against the government has been the primary mechanism for changing regimes.
In the United States, the question provokes the deeper question: do we really believe that we are living in a democracy, where every person has equal voice over collective decisions?
People who particularly feel like their voices are not welcome in the democratic discussion will be the most likely to revert to violence, and one might argue that the same are the most justified in the use of violence.
However, it is those same people that are most considered a threat by the rest of society. That is why they have been excluded. Instead, we have observed tranches of society with privileged voice exercising violence in response to relative losses of privilege. And those people have the closest connections to agencies of violence that we are all supposed to treat as legitimate.
People often are more defensive of their privileges than they are of their rights.
Which set of elites is most threatened by the idea that more people consider the use of violence against the government as justifiable? That would be a good follow-up question.
Who? The Deep State - those employed in the vast array of alphabet soup agencies with little to no accountability who make most of the rules we are bounded to
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit