What is the source of authority?

[Aphaetonism]

Originally Posted by Friendly Black Mage

2.What would the federal government have to do to prevent this from happening, or to stop it if it had already started to happen?
A: To prevent it, they would be a fair government. If there was a revolt, they would use force (unless they saw another way out of the problem). the military and such would go into the area and take down the rebels.

What is considered fair and unfair can be very different things depending on who you ask! But it seems we are agreed that the only way the federal government can enforce its laws is through the threat and possibly use of overwhelming or even deadly force.

Originally Posted by Friendly Black Mage

It's taking alot of control to keep me from saying "duh" after every sentence.

Sometimes a person asks questions because he doesn't know the answers. Sometimes he asks them because the answer he is given is a good way to judge the character of the person (or people) he plans to associate with. At other times he simply wishes to make a point or present an idea. Philosophy does that last one a lot.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Laws tend to work because laws tend to be based on a moral system that few human beings would dare go against; there aren't too many people who could rationalize rape or theft or murder as the morally right course of events. Hence the majority of Americans in all areas of the country tend to follow the law. And the minority of Americans who would prefer breaking the law are suppressed by law enforcement; that's why we have the Police.

Hmm, so your view is that the law reflects morality. But what about laws that a person disagrees with on moral grounds? What, besides the fear of having property or freedom taken away, would compel a person to follow such laws? Morality can be quite subjective.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

I disagree with Whale Biologist's assertation that "fear and pain" are the only two motivations to follow the law. While negative reinforcement certainly has its place in keeping deviants down, most folks living in first-world countries tend to respect the laws of their nations because of positive reinforcement.

In order for that to work you have to already want (and lack) the things that are provided to you as reinforcement. For someone who doesn't care about respect or prestige or family, and who has enough wealth that he doesn't need a job, those things aren't really much of a motivation. Whereas nearly everyone feels fear and pain, and no rational person would want to be forced into jail.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

EDIT: This post was written in response to Aphaetonism, not Friendly Black Mage. And Apha, if I spelled your name wrong, it's only because you chose such a nonsensical screenname in the first place.

Your insight is appreciated and respected. Perhaps you could analyze the method by which I chose that name for me so that I may better appreciate how foolish I was to choose it.

Originally Posted by Azisien

What does the government have to do to prevent revolt? Keep the citizens happy. There is a reason 75% of a state is revolting. I'm assuming of course this population of citizens didn't just materialize out of nowhere, and that at one point they WEREN'T revolting and therefore WERE happy (or just not sufficiently angry?). Did the federal government add a new law, rule, or policy that caused the revolt?

That was what I was trying to imply, yes.

Originally Posted by Azisien

The authority has a duty to step in and stop the revolts. Be it through diplomacy (sounds less likely at the point of state-wide revolt) or all-out combat (more likely), they've got to try.

Right, like it was Britain's duty to try to stop its colonies from rebelling.

Originally Posted by Azisien

Citizens choosing to revolt and not follow the law of said country, ESPECIALLY if this endangers law-abiding citizens, forfeit their title as 'citizens' to me.

But surely a government's laws only apply to its citizens. How could it justify trying to put down a rebellion (for the sake of enforcing a law) if the people in question aren't even its citizens anymore?