Is Civil Disobedience a valid method of protest?

apdst said:

The issue I have with boycotts, is how do you justify outting people people out of work, if you manage to force that business to close it's doors? At the end of the day, what's been accomplished? Working class folks are out of a job and the business operator cut his losses, took the money and ran.

Click to expand...

Isn't part of the philosophy for things such as being against smoking laws that those laws shouldn't be necessary because if people don't like that a business allows smoking, they can just choose to not go to or work at that business? Even if every business in the area allowed smoking? If enough people do this, then the business should eventually change their policies to ban smoking on their own or go out of business.

But what you are talking about would mean that government would be required to step in on behalf of those citizens who do not want smoking in public businesses and those businesses that might have to shut down should they be protested for having a smoking allowed policy.

You really can't have it both ways because there is almost always going to be someone who disagrees with a company's policies, especially policies that are discriminatory or potentially dangerous. And that someone is going to work to get those policies changed, either through government force or through public pressure, which basically means pocketbook pressure. Whether you agree that the reason for them disliking the policy or not doesn't really matter.

coolwalker said:

First of all "Civil Disobedience" is an oxymoron. You can't be civil and disobey at the same time. If you are disobeying the law you are breaking the law. Things are sometimes so simple that the concept is lost in the simplicity.

Click to expand...

It's not an oxymoron at all. You're just using an incorrect definition of the word "civil". Your thinking in regards to the term is just overly simplistic.

Occupying Civil Disobedience

"With the Occupy protests continuing, and with hundreds of arrests at the various protests across the country, some people that oppose the protests have resorted to attacking the character of the protesters instead of the message. Some of the accusations are:

* They didn’t get a permit, the “TEA Party” did.
* They’re getting arrested, that never happened at “TEA Party” protests.
* They don’t respect public or private property, “TEA Party” protests rented porta-potties, they use the restrooms of local businesses.

Other accusations are more outlandish, claiming the occupy groups are anti-semitic, anti-American (because of the supposed absence of American flags), and the derogatory term “fleabagger” has come about because of a perception that the protesters are dirty.

The first three accusations are inter-related (I will not dignify the more outlandish claims with a response). The Constitution of these United States of America supposedly protects the right to peaceably assemble. The Constitution does NOT say “you have the right to peaceably assemble, as long as you receive permission from your local government.” The Occupy protesters that are being arrested have mostly been charged with “disorderly conduct” and “protesting without a permit” though a few have been charged with assaulting police – the latter being a charge I do not condone."