(EDIT: I've forgotten to mention that this post is a partial and adapted translation of this article: https://nientestronzate.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/scrivere-di-onore-e-coraggio/)
So, let's start from the beginning: the state is nothing but the military faction that dominates a given territory. This definition is sufficient, because if you're the dominant power, you can enforce your laws applying them with the strength of sanctions, and is necessary because, if absurdly we hypothesize another stronger military power, it could put forward their laws to the detriment of the state.
Determined that the state is the militarily dominant faction in a given area, it is clear what the law is: the law is nothing but the way in which the ruling faction intends to maintain dominance, make it stable and preferably profitable.
That said, if we look at the individual, one wonders what are the limits and powers of the state over the individual. The strength of the state is, of course, being able to hurt the person, up to kill him. Unfortunately, this is simultaneously the LIMIT of state power, as a person (willing to die for some reason he considers superior to his own life) will tend to care nothing of the will of the state, and will tend to fight it.
Surely if the person is an individual, the state likely will not have problems to suppress him. If, however, the number of people grows, the state will face a number of conflicts that may prove excessive.
Thus, the strength of the state coincides with its limit: the citizen who considers certain "rights" a reason to die or be killed, will ignore the threat of death. The citizen who has an honor and consider it more important than life, will not leave himself to be intimidated, bended, vexed.
It is absolutely clear that the state considers those people with honor and courage as omnipotent. Although they do not have the same tools, these citizens are ABOVE THE LAW, since the state has run out of threats. Eliminating them physically can perhaps lessen the physical danger, but it is clear that the removal of these individuals is ipso facto a defeat for the desired order, since these people are irreducible to the order.
Now we go to the point: democracy can exist IF and ONLY IF there is a certain amount of people who are willing to die rather than suffer dishonor to their dignity. If these people exist in numbers high enough, the country becomes democratic and maintains democracy. It does so because the state knows that, becoming oppressive, it would find more and more people willing to die, and knows that, beyond a certain limit, the clash would be too expensive.
Democracy is the reduction of the state to an entity which is forced to compromise with the citizens. And I repeat: it is forced.
The state accepts democracy ONLY and ONLY "grudgingly". He accepts it grudgingly, only to face the prospect of a high number of clashes. Democracy, then, is the measure of the courage of the citizens. Dictatorship is, simply, a state that realizes to have average coward citizens.
All the ills of democracy can be attributed to the cowardice of the citizens.
And the state knows that. Not for nothing, honor and courage are values that are passed to the armed forces (which don't need fear military force of another state) but not to citizens, for whom are always exalted cowardice and endurance.
The state knows that when someone sets a limit to bearable humiliation, and decides that EVEN TO THE COST OF LIVING that is bearable humiliation, his power has met the limit: it will probably kill the person, but do not reduce him to the order.
This is the reason why you feel this strange feeling, this heady feeling when you read this post: it is the feeling of freedom.
When you place a limit beyond which death is acceptable, you have a limit on the power of the state, which can not do more than kill. When you place that limit and you REALLY decided to give your life if it is violated, YOU ARE FREE.
The strange, thrilling feeling that you feel when you read this post is nothing more than the feeling that you have NEVER tried before, the feeling of FREEDOM. Because only when you place a limit to what the others can do to you, and when it is more important for you than LIFE, then you are FREE. The free man shouts "Long live death!", and no other one is a free man.
Anyone who is willing to die for his freedom is really free. And without an adequate number of free people, no state will never be a complete democracy. It's not about the middle class, not about the people who have culture or school: democracy is nothing more than the balance of state power by the bellicose courage of citizens.
Left to myself, I would put the right to be bellicose in HUMAN RIGHTS, and it summarize EVERY other human right, since if deprived of this right, YOU ARE NOT OTHER THAN SLAVES.
In a FREE country, a slave driver entrepreneur (who has 10 people as temporary workers and exploits them for a loaf of bread) finds, out of the door at the end of the day, ten people armed with steel bars, and takes 4-5 years to start to eat without nursing help. And when the police arrives, the first two police officers must meet the same end: only if similar things happen, the State will REALLY make laws on precarious jobs.
Yes, of course, probably those ten will die: what if the police wants to put you in jail and you fight to the end? That your eyes will see a great day. But also other eyes will see it.
In a FREE country, the firing of a pregnant woman leads to the violent death of her employer. And again, the inevitable confrontation with the police.
What is lacking, therefore, for freedom? It's necessary that someone decides that there is a limit, beyond which the death for their dignity and their honor is BEAUTIFUL.
Yes, of course, get killed by fighting against unequal forces is difficult. You can well organize an aggressive, warlike and much more dangerous faction. Probably you'll die: unless you make a succeeded coup, in all probability you will die fighting.
But even the state can't deal with the huge number of fights that awaits him if it has a COURAGEOUS population that is willing to die with HONOR rather than be harassed. A family man who does not have to feed their children or has the courage to leave his country or has the courage to fight. In that case, the problem is, if anything, "What will they do to my family if I die?", but for the individual without hope of being able to form a family, in a free country, the answer is WAR AGAINST THE STATE.
It's so that freedom is born, not with the pathetic roundabouts of Occupy and old bald pigtailed hippies. The flag of peace won't give you freedom. The peaceful demonstration will not lead the State to not step on the citizens.
Democracy, rights and freedom are only alternative names we give to the presence of brave and bellicose citizens as needed, willing to die with honor rather than live as a coward. Only those men are FREE, and only with a lot of free men the state begins to become democratic.
Moreover, it is quite obvious that if the state is nothing but the dominant military faction, and from it derives the authority of its body of law, the limit of his power is the limit of its sanctions, and the limit of its sanctions is simply the military limit, or the presence of a bellicose and courageous citizenship .
There is ONLY ONE "human right", and it is the right to fight, if necessary, to death. From this right all the others derive, because only when many are fighting, many are free. Without this introduction, the "Declaration of Human Rights" is only a poor variety of toilet paper.
In the German Constitution, Article 20, Paragraph IV, there is an interesting article:
(IV) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.
It means that if you do not have any tool to ensure the rights outlined in the Constitution, and they are being abolished, the struggle is permitted by the Constitution.
The end of democracy is nothing more than the domination of cowardice. There is no dictatorship that is possible when citizens are brave and bellicose. There is no tyranny that is possible if a sufficient number of people shouts "Long live death!".
The moment when you decide, REALLY, that there is a limit beyond which you choose to die in combat against men of the state, ONLY and ONLY when the limit exists and only and only when you say that you are REALLY willing to see a great day, then you will be FREE.
And the thing you feel when you read these words is a thrilling, new, never tried sensation. It's not exaltation. It's not will to beating up (although there would be no need). No, this thing you're trying, this breath of fresh air, it has a different name.
It's called "freedom"
If you are bellicose and brave, you are free.
Otherwise, you're just slaves.