Skip to comments.Civil Disobedience
Posted on 01/11/2013 12:37:10 PM PST by PeterPrinciple
What makes a breach of law an act of civil disobedience? When is civil disobedience morally justified? How should the law respond to people who engage in civil disobedience? Discussions of civil disobedience have tended to focus on the first two of these questions. On the most widely accepted account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. On this account, the persons who practice civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as this shows their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, revolutionary action, militant protest and organised forcible resistance, on the other hand..............................................
(Excerpt) Read more at plato.stanford.edu ...
BUT, we are rapidly coming to the point where we are going to have to take a stand or submit. I think it is time we understand the rules, history, consequences and philosophy of civil disobedience. Maybe I am alone in this.
Throughout history, acts of civil disobedience famously have helped to force a reassessment of society’s moral parameters. The Boston Tea Party, the suffragette movement, the resistance to British rule in India led by Gandhi, the US civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and others, the resistance to apartheid in South Africa, student sit-ins against the Vietnam War, to name a few, are all instances where civil disobedience proved to be an important mechanism for social change. The ultimate impact of more recent acts of civil disobedience anti-abortion trespass demonstrations, the damaging of military property in opposition to the Iraq war, or acts of disobedience taken as part of the environmental movement or the animal rights movement remains to be seen.
“Drive By” postings...just what do you think an anonymous web forum is all about?
I don’t know who the author is, but the question is a good one.
“How can a Civil Right be a Moral Wrong?”
And when it comes to standing up for Civil Rights or engaging in Civil Disobedience - the matter of morality must be clearly understood. And thank God we Americans have a moral document that spells things out for us.
Insert John Adams quote here - - - Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
How can a Civil Right be a Moral Wrong?
good example of relativism
Poland Monument to Shipyard Workers Fallen in 1970, created following the GdaÅsk Agreement, and unveiled December 16, 1980. Civil disobedience was a tactic used by the Polish in protest of the former communist government. In the 1970s and 1980s, there occurred a deepening crisis within Soviet-style societies brought about by declining morale, worsening economic conditions (a shortage economy), and the growing stresses of the Cold War.
After a brief period of economic boom, from 1975, the policies of the Polish government, led by Party First Secretary Edward Gierek, precipitated a slide into increasing depression, as foreign debt mounted. In June 1976, the first workers strikes took place, involving violent incidents at factories in Radom and Ursus. On October 16, 1978, the Bishop of KrakÃ³w, Karol WojtyÅa, was elected Pope John Paul II. A year later, during his first pilgrimage to Poland, his masses were attended by millions of his countrymen. The Pope called for the respecting of national and religious traditions and advocated for freedom and human rights, while denouncing violence. To many Poles, he represented a spiritual and moral force that could be set against brute material forces; he was a bellwether of change, and became an important symboland supporterof changes to come. He was later to define the concept of solidarity in his Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (December 30, 1987).
On July of 1980, the government of Edward Gierek, facing an economic crisis, decided to raise the prices while slowing the growth of the wages. A wave of strikes and factory occupations began at once. At the Lenin Shipyard in GdaÅsk, workers were outraged at the sacking of Anna Walentynowicz, a popular crane operator and well-known activist who became a spark that pushed them into action. The workers were led by electrician Lech WaÅÄsa, a former shipyard worker who had been dismissed in 1976, and who arrived at the shipyard on August 14. The strike committee demanded rehiring of Anna Walentynowicz and Lech WaÅÄsa, raising a monument to the casualties of 1970, respecting of workers rights and additional social demands.
By August 21, most of Poland was affected by the strikes, from coastal shipyards to the mines of the Upper Silesian Industrial Area. Thanks to popular support within Poland, as well as to international support and media coverage, the GdaÅsk workers held out until the government gave in to their demands. Though concerned with labor union matters, the GdaÅsk agreement enabled citizens to introduce democratic changes within the communist political structure and was regarded as a first step toward dismantling the Partys monopoly of power. Lech Walesa received by Pope John Paul II in the Vatican in January 1981.
Buoyed by the success of the strike, on the September 17, the representatives of Polish workers, including Lech WaÅÄsa, formed a nationwide trade union, Solidarity (NiezaleÅ¼ny SamorzÄ dny ZwiÄ zek Zawodowy SolidarnoÅÄ). On December 16, 1980, the Monument to fallen Shipyard Workers was unveiled. On January 15, 1981, a delegation from Solidarity, including Lech WaÅÄsa, met Pope John Paul II in Rome. Between September 5 and 10 and September 26 to October 7, the first national congress of Solidarity was held, and Lech WaÅÄsa was elected its president. In the meantime Solidarity transformed from a trade union into a social movement.
Over the next 500 days following the GdaÅsk Agreement, 9 to 10 million workers, intellectuals, and students joined it or its sub-organizations. It was the first and only recorded time in the history that a quarter of a countrys population have voluntarily joined a single organization. History has taught us that there is no bread without freedom, the Solidarity program stated a year later. What we had in mind were not only bread, butter, and sausage but also justice, democracy, truth, legality, human dignity, freedom of convictions, and the repair of the republic. Using strikes and other protest actions, Solidarity sought to force a change in the governmental policies. At the same time it was careful to never use force or violence, to avoid giving the government any excuse to bring the security forces into play. Solidaritys influence led to the intensification and spread of anti-communist ideals and movements throughout the countries of the Eastern Bloc, weakening their communist governments.
In 1983, Lech WaÅÄsa received the Nobel Prize for Peace, but the Polish government refused to issue him a passport and allow him to leave the country. Finally, Roundtable Talks between the weakened Polish government and Solidarity-led opposition led to semi-free elections in 1989. By the end of August, a Solidarity-led coalition government was formed, and in December, Lech WaÅÄsa was elected president.
Any comments on this civil disobedience?
How can a Civil Right be a Moral Wrong?
good example of relativism
I have to dig out my Thoreau pamphlet...
I will repeat things are coming to a head and one of our options is civil disobedience. It is important we understand the process. So far I have noticed THERE IS A PROCESS, there were leaders who understood the process and the participants were TRAINED in the process.
What is real striking to me is the current void of discussion of civil disobedience.
Those who practice this, and are on the left, are forgiven and become famous.
Those on the right go to jail.
I quietly don’t obey laws that I don’t think are just or constitutional. And I don’t plan on filling out the healthcare form on my tax return or registering guns (er..if I had any). Problem is I’m only one person so it probably doesn’t help unless a lot of people do it. Supposedly the IRS doesn’t have enforcement powers (yet) on the form so that seems to me to be a good place to start.
Civil disobedience is not a private affair. It is, by definition, an open act of principled rebellion against certain authority. It may be nonviolent or it may not. It is highly public and in-your-face directed at those who support the authority in question.
Civil disobedience is not opposition to a law or set of laws. It is an act of disobedience directed at specific authority. If there is no agency enforcing the law there is no civil disobedience.
Well I can’t lead a one woman civil disobedience, so that’s why I do it privately. I think if enough people refused to fill out the heathcare form on tax returns at least that’s a place to start. I doubt if people that don’t plan on registering guns aren’t going to wave them on TV and yell “come get it you MF”. Now if they come knocking on you door to confiscate maybe a lot of people plan to go down , but what will happen after there has been a few examples? I’m just asking, I think civil disobedience is WAY overdue.
Civil disobedience is only effective when dealing with moral people. Obama is somewhere between national socialist and soviet socialist but on the far totalitarian end of the political spectrum - the exact opposite of a moral person. I do not consider accepting the legal consequences of breaking today's new laws to be prudent. I have no desire to show my "fidelity to the rule of law", not when those laws are intentionally written to violate the Constitution and then enforced unequally. We are facing pure evil, and voluntarily giving such people power over your life and freedom is a terrible idea.
somethings just don’t need a lot of words to get the point across
Every one of those you listed have two things in common. They were all legal; they were all unlawful. To my mind, the difference between them:
We've seen countless edicts issued, especially since the 1900's, that directly undermine the precepts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet all have been labeled as legitimate per the judiciary. Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, Kelo, et al -- were all 'legal' decisions, but not 'lawful'.