I'm reading an essay written by the Italian philosopher Remo Bodei, where he examines the thoughts of some German philosopher on the french revolution and revolutions in general.
According to him, Kant stated that citizens do not have the right to change the current political system through violence, because no constitution could possibly guarantee the right to overthrow itself, it would be political suicide. Therefore, he, and other philosophers such as Fichte, look for arguments to morally justify the french revolution.
So the reasoning, as I understood it, is this:
The legislation of a state cannot include a law that justifies revolutions, in other words there exist a law which states: citizens must not rebel, therefore
Rebellion is against the law
Violating the law is just if and only if the law is unjust (this is not explicitly written in the essay, it's something I've come up with to make sense of the argument), therefore
We have to prove that the law citizens must not rebel is unjust in order for a revolution that wants to promote human rights to be licit (same as above)
But isn't such statement actually self-evident? If the legislation contains unjust laws, or those who hold power apply it unjustly, isn't it right to fight them and establish a better government? What's the point of considering it a problem?
Bodei, then, writes about Fichte:
He thought that whenever the progress of the human spirit is hindered, then it behaves like a gas in a baloon: if the baloon compresses the gas too much, it will eventually explode.
The point here is that according to Fichte humans have a natural tendency to expand and improve, and so whenever a political institution tries to hold them, there is a risk that they will eventually rebel making such institution "explode". Hence, it is not possible to expect a nation not to rebel whenever oppressed by a constitution or a government, making the rebellion law unjust. I don't know anything about Fichte or idealism, but his solution seems a bit forced to me (or maybe it is just a natural consequence of his philosophical system?). Is that right?