Commenter Gordon at the Volokh Conspiracy asked, in a thread about the French riots, how to tell the difference between terrorism and the justifiable use of arms against tyranny. The question would also apply to rioting: how to tell the difference between a deplorable riot and an uprising?
French textbooks promote violence against "American and Israeli tyranny," and say terrorism is the "weapon of the weak."Meanwhile in the U.S. one of the arguments given for the right to bear arms is that they provide a "weapon of the weak" against a possibly tyrannical central government…
Clearly the first message is odious, while the second message is celebrated by many in the U.S. I’m interested in hearing a clear rational argument why this is so – an argument not based upon "I can’t define tyranny, but I know it when I see it."
The first question in deciding whether violence against a tyrannical government or perceived oppressor is justified is, of course, "Does this qualify as tyranny?" (Even if it is a tyranny, the violence may or may not be justified; but if it is not a tyranny, it is certainly not justified.) Conspirator David Kopel responded in an update, not by defining tyranny, but by offering a test for it:
In modern application, if a government allows religious freedom for everyone, the evidence is strong (although not absolutely dispositive) that the government is not a tyranny, in part because governments which are tolerant of religious freedom are usually tolerant of many other freedoms.Conversely, people who seek a government which will kill all people of a particular race or religion (e.g., Jews) and which will suppress all religions except one particular sect almost certainly is a tyranny.Among the legitimate uses of firearms are self-defense by free governments and free citizens against tyranny and against terrorists who are attempting to impose tyranny.
France is not likely to be a tyranny because tyrannical governments are not usually tolerant of religious freedom.
I haven’t done the research to determine whether this inductive argument rests on enough cases to be strong, but it sounds plausible to me.
A few commenters (predictably) point out that this argument relies on the European tradition of moral philosophy. Kopel based the claim on research of — European religious philosophers! So this shouldn’t be surprising. But what’s wrong with choosing the European tradition of moral philosophy to define tyranny? You have to have some world view to decide anything, and we are talking about France here. And the right to religious freedom strikes me as universally embedded in the human condition.
There I go, spouting about natural rights again!
