It definitely is, if done from within the country. If done from outside, it's bog-standard (swamp-standard?) military action, but a small group deciding unilaterally that they know how to lead the country better and therefore will seize control of it via violence and force is pretty clearly an extremist action. Who are they to say the government is tyrannical? I bet I can find 1000 redditors who will say Trump is tyrannical within a half hour. So, is overthrowing Trump not extreme? Routine at this point, sure, they've tried, but is it an extreme action to attempt to overthrow the lawful rule of the POTUS? THEY say he's tyrannical, after all, so clearly, not an extreme action?
No one attempts to overthrow a government because they think that government is doing a great job and full of loving, competent, wise and caring people. That just doesn't happen. Your definition means every act of anarchy, every assassination, every coup is mundane and moderate.
The real distinction is extreme actions are sometimes justified. Like self-defense (versus-murder) or truth (versus-libel), there are situations where a "wrong" action is justified in its performance, but it is a justification, a defense of the action within the context of that action's wrongness, not declaring the base action itself is pure.
He’s not saying don’t take extreme action. He’s just saying to fairly recognize what is extreme versus what is not. Everyone needs to have that filter or things go sideways.
Shooting someone in self defense is extreme by anyone’s measure - it’s taking a life and there is no more severe an action. If I shoot someone in self defense I will be called upon to account for my actions because they are outside the norms of typical human interaction in society. But under the right conditions both under Natural law principles, morals, and our legal system it’s justified to kill another. Perhaps even required, dare I say.
Declaring war is along the same vein.
The Declaration of Independence was quite literally a list of grievances and reasons why extreme actions (a revolutionary war for independence and self governance) called for by the Founding Fathers were justified. It’s the lead-in sentence. It’s there to demonstrate to others why their cause is legitimate and such radical measures (war) had to be taken and are justified.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Yes, the overthrow of British rule by the colonists was about as extreme as it could get. A group of people with no military or form of government, overthrowing a superpower? That is pretty fucking extreme.
It definitely is, if done from within the country. If done from outside, it's bog-standard (swamp-standard?) military action, but a small group deciding unilaterally that they know how to lead the country better and therefore will seize control of it via violence and force is pretty clearly an extremist action. Who are they to say the government is tyrannical? I bet I can find 1000 redditors who will say Trump is tyrannical within a half hour. So, is overthrowing Trump not extreme? Routine at this point, sure, they've tried, but is it an extreme action to attempt to overthrow the lawful rule of the POTUS? THEY say he's tyrannical, after all, so clearly, not an extreme action?
No one attempts to overthrow a government because they think that government is doing a great job and full of loving, competent, wise and caring people. That just doesn't happen. Your definition means every act of anarchy, every assassination, every coup is mundane and moderate.
The real distinction is extreme actions are sometimes justified. Like self-defense (versus-murder) or truth (versus-libel), there are situations where a "wrong" action is justified in its performance, but it is a justification, a defense of the action within the context of that action's wrongness, not declaring the base action itself is pure.
He’s not saying don’t take extreme action. He’s just saying to fairly recognize what is extreme versus what is not. Everyone needs to have that filter or things go sideways.
Shooting someone in self defense is extreme by anyone’s measure - it’s taking a life and there is no more severe an action. If I shoot someone in self defense I will be called upon to account for my actions because they are outside the norms of typical human interaction in society. But under the right conditions both under Natural law principles, morals, and our legal system it’s justified to kill another. Perhaps even required, dare I say.
Declaring war is along the same vein.
The Declaration of Independence was quite literally a list of grievances and reasons why extreme actions (a revolutionary war for independence and self governance) called for by the Founding Fathers were justified. It’s the lead-in sentence. It’s there to demonstrate to others why their cause is legitimate and such radical measures (war) had to be taken and are justified.
Yes, the overthrow of British rule by the colonists was about as extreme as it could get. A group of people with no military or form of government, overthrowing a superpower? That is pretty fucking extreme.