Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
I realize that; it's why I referred to a hypothetical effort to claim such a right. Those engaged in such efforts need to clarify what they want, because it sounds like they propose a system in which any individual has the right to resort to armed force at any offense perceived by that individual. That would be... chaotic, to say the least.

Hypothetically one might say that the right to revolution comes into play when democracy ceases to exist, but too many confuse "democracy" with "getting what I want".
I think a consensus could be established in terms of "self defense" generally, but probably not the specifics. If someone shoots at you, you have the right to shoot back. If policy by a distant elite forces your family into poverty, do you have the right to steal? What about the right to use violence in the progress of that theft? What about the right to use violence to prevent your impoverishment? We could probably agree that slaves have the right to revolt (though obviously that was disputed in the 19th century and prior) but that argument must rely upon the denial of one's freedom as justification. Hence, the definition of 'freedom', which some posters here have declined to provide, is of essential importance in defining one's rights. So where do we start in defining 'freedom'?