Let me preface this post by saying that I understand (or think I do!) why Kant thinks there can never be a right to have a revolution. He gives only one exception: and that is when a rightful condition is denied. He (or Prof. Ripstein does) characterizes it as the creation of a state rather than a revolution of a previous one. I just wanted to see if a revolution is possible.
Kant draws a distinct line between barbarism and the republic (the proper state). Both have force and authority, but only the latter has freedom. The republic has the rightful conditions in place and acts omni-laterally; the barbaric state acts only unilaterally.
My little counterpoint mostly pivots around this: exactly when is the rightful condition violated? The individuals qualms of rights violation, Kant says, must be redressed within the state. But is there a point where this becomes an inadequate response? And where a more urgent and self-directed action (i.e. revolution) is necessary?
Take a state like Qatar. Qatar is functionally speaking a state. They are ostensibly a republic. Qataris have rights. There seems to be a rightful condition in place. But in Qatar there’s a huge underclass of migrant workers who are systematically exploited. Wage slavery is almost putting it mildly. They have little to no rights. Would this be considered barbarism or an imperfect republic? What happens if some people have freedoms while others have none at all? Suppose the underclass band together and act unilaterally: is this revolution in action (overthrowing of a republic) or is it the rejection of a barbaric state and the creation of a legitimate one?
No comments:
Post a Comment