The right of revolution, once granted, cannot be constrained to merely one type. If the people have a right to revolt due to a tyrannical government, than they must have a right to revolt over anything else-or else it is a privilege.
I think people do. It's just usually done in a socially acceptable way like a protest or strike.
Revolution is not granted. It's taken.
There is no such thing as the "right" to revolt. Hence the term "revolt". If there is any "right" involved with revolution at all it is the "right" (and duty) of the currently empowered authority to squash it, with as much force as necessary.
I don't think the right of revolution is ever really granted. People typically have to exercise it on heir own.
You know what I mean though...
Plus some say their is an inherent right to revolt if a government is tyrannical. Wouldn't that have to logically apply to all reasons for wanting to revolt?
The right to revolt is only inherent as an extension of the right to self-defense. So unless someone is actively causing harm to you, the right to revolt against them would apply.
Of course, if you're "revolting" against something that isn't causing harm to you, you really aren't revolting anyway.