Do you believe in civil disobedience?

That is actually a really good point and I never thought of it that way! I guess anyone could say that they feel like their rights are being violated for something, but not everyone has the same definition of rights. I think most of us can agree on what is ethically wrong though. Or at least we should be able to at this point. I am not sure if we are all on the same ethical page on some things after reading some of the discussions on here, unfortunately...

Very well said trouble, you have also given me new insight and the ability to see this issue from a different angle! How refreshing to see someone able to engage in intelligent conversation. As, for you katran, your post always give me something new to chew on. You replied, that you think at this point we should be able to agree on ethics... sadly I fear, we are far away indead, from a consensus on this issue.

Thank you very much for that quote. "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right." I think that is so true! I would perhaps add the stipulation that your first obligation should be not to harm anyone else, but beyond that doing what you think is right is the most important thing! Thank you very much for your input.

That is also my point if you could topple a government more so if it is not that big. For as long as the effect of it is really felt by the action.

Thank you, rsa. I am not necessarily talking about toppling a whole government. Some people may just want to change one law, which is fine in my book. The only way laws get changed is if people speak out.

Yes, I guess a jail cell is not the best place to stage a protest. Although, the women that got thrown in jail while protesting their right to vote were very much instrumental in putting pressure on Congress simply because their jailing was highly unjust and they were treated horribly. But yes, a public demonstration might be a better way to go. The only problem with that is that I think they more often turn violent, simply because any time you get a very large group of people together bad things tend to happen. I think a combination of both - some people willing to break the law to draw attention to it and some people just demonstrating - is perhaps best.

katran: The ONLY way to bring attention to a bad law is to break it? And yet you believe that WE are in charge of the government? So, the legislative branch of the government is a fiction created to make us sleep tight in our beds? You're right about the court system, but the court system doesn't make laws (at least, they're not supposed to), the legislature does. Those are the men and women we elect to public office. Do you think they sit in Washington, collect pay checks, and play golf? They are the people we turn to when we want to change things, not extreme measures like breaking laws for the sake of publicity. Do I feel that the people you named were extremists? Yes, at the time of their actions they were. Their actions were justified by the good brought forth, but at the time they were extreme. Does that mean I think they weren't visionaries? No. Visionaries are extremists. They have to be, they see a radically different version of the world than the people living in it. Sometimes their visions are good, but in some cases they aren't. It could be argued that Hitler was a visionary and extremist. He is no way in the same league as the figures you mentioned. If you want the government to fear the people, you are asking for anarchy. Governments need to respect their citizens, acknowledge the power wielded by the citizenry. Should there be an element of fear? Yes, but respect is more important. And they are not one in the same. Machiavelli (who said it is better to be feared than loved) was good if you like totalitarianism, not so much in democracies. Mutual respect is more important. Order is not a luxury for a civilized society, it is a necessity. To have order, you must have laws, to have laws, they must be adhered to, otherwise they aren't laws. It is illegal to have a bathtub in your house in the state of Virginia. Guess what, people still have them and nobody is going to prison for it. In essence, it is no longer a law. Civil disobedience should be a last resort. Once all other avenues are exhausted it is the one you turn to. But it is a path fraught with danger. Anyone who ignores that cares less about helping people and more about helping their ideology.

I am not suggesting that the ONLY way to fix laws is to break them, but certainly a law cannot be changed if no one is willing to break it. First of all, the only way to bring a law to the attention of the courts is to break it, because courts only hear crimes. You cannot even get a case taken to the Supreme Court unless you either break the law or sue someone. I would also not say that breaking the law is that extreme. Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and the Silent Sentinels who were instrumental in the passing of the 19th Amendment all encouraged civil disobedience. Would you call them extremists? No. They were visionaries. I think it all goes back to the quote "people should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people." WE are in charge of the laws. The government only enforces them. That means if we want them changed, we have to draw attention to those laws by any means necessary, and sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the best way to do that is to break the law.

Dori, you raise a very valid point, civil disobedience should be considered an extreme option. Any decision made in haste has the potential to have unforeseen consequences. Although the original intention may be to create positive change, one could be contributing to further problems. We will never be 100% accurate in determining the consequences of our actions, because we're not perfect. Thus, there will always be a risk involved, as one tries too initiate change.

I agree. One only has to look at American history to know as much. If it weren't for civil disobedience, white males would still be the only ones with any rights!

I agree. If the government is abusive and corrupt then sometimes this is the only way to change it. When laws are wrong this is often the only way to change them. It should not have to be but when all else fails we have the right to object to what is happening.

Good point. I guess it is kind of left up to the people at large to have the common sense to know the distance between an unjust law and something that simply is out of anyone's hands. I have faith that enough people know the difference between right and wrong though. Perhaps it is misplaced faith, but the world is a bleak place if I can't at least hang on to that.

Indeed. Government should answer to their people, not the other way around. If the citizens do not like a law, they have every right to try and change it.