Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

The Rule of Law must be tempered by the necessity of universal justice and the consent of the governed to be valid or the Rule of Law becomes a straight-jacket in the service of tyranny.

Civil disobedience is a mechanism by which those outside of the halls of power, who object to either unjust law or law which is not universally applied, can endeavour to change things without resorting to violence, uprising or armed rebellion. Civil disobedience imposes political and monetary costs on a state through non-violent means which those with power find troublesome and vexing. This trouble and vexation either forces political change or triggers coercive reaction from the state and its power elites. If change is made, then the social pressure demanding reform is reduced and the society can move towards a more tranquil social equilibrium. If the civil disobedience triggers reaction and seriuos push-back from the state it unmasks the state as a coercive leviathan which is intolerant and deaf to the demands of peaceful dissidents. The suppression of dissent in a free society either by mishandled propaganda of by physical coercive force delegitimises the state and attracts more people to join the civil disobedience. Eventually the civil disobedience will work or dissidents will become so numerous and so determined that they will move from non-violent civil disobedience to direct action, violence or open rebellion (perhaps armed rebellion). So wise states and statesmen/stateswomen should value civil disobedience as a societal safety-valve which releases social pressure and buys some short time for a society to change laws which are not universally applied or which are fundamentally or structurally unjust.

Civil disobedience is disruptive and inconvenient but it is also a peaceful mechanism by which those outside the halls of power can effect real change without resorting to violence. Thus even though it involves illegal behaviour it is necessary. Thus civil disobedience is a "social good" and a positive societal asset in a free and democratic society. Only when a society ceases to be free and democratic does civil disobedience become illegitimate as an intolerable challenge to the absolute power of an oligarchy, monarchy, or dictatorship.

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/02/law-rule-power-act-breaking

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

radcen said:

The link, though, specifically does not include violence.

Click to expand...

Yes. Unfortunately the distinction is often lost on modern "civil disobedience" protesters.

Then there are things like Occupy, whose motives and goals were cloudy and ill-defined, and whose grievances were dubious and general.

radcen said:

Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience

Quote from linked article:
"Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent."

Emphasis in bold mine.

Click to expand...

Yes, if the civil disobedience is directly tied to a particular unjust law, like Jim Crow laws, women's suffrage, ect. Where it's not legitimate is when you're doing it to violate the rights of your fellow citizens.

Fledermaus said:

True. I vote yes.

Click to expand...

To your previous post, Tienanmen Square was an awesome example of civil disobedience. Sucks that it wasn't successful.

Goshin said:

Yes. Unfortunately the distinction is often lost on modern "civil disobedience" protesters.

Then there are things like Occupy, whose motives and goals were cloudy and ill-defined, and whose grievances were dubious and general.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is very true. Both.

Yes, as long as it is not infringing on other people such as rioting

ttwtt78640 said:

Nope, that was an organized armed rebellion which is well beyond civil disobedience. Do you also consider the US civil war to be civil disobedience?

Click to expand...

Events leading up to the armed conflict, such as boycotts and refusals to pay taxes were conscious acts that did not involve violence until they did. Do you consider the US Civil war to be an act of civil disobedience?

Parrish said:

Events leading up to the armed conflict, such as boycotts and refusals to pay taxes were conscious acts that did not involve violence until they did. Do you consider the US Civil war to be an act of civil disobedience?

Click to expand...

I think, generally, that civil disobedience is a decent tactic so long as it does not become violent.

Although I'm by not means sure that violence is not currently or will not in the future become necessary, if things continue on the path they appear to be on.

Parrish said:

1) Events leading up to the armed conflict, such as boycotts and refusals to pay taxes were conscious acts that did not involve violence until they did. 2) Do you consider the US Civil war to be an act of civil disobedience?

Click to expand...

1) They were still colonists until the armed rebellion changed that status thus that civil disobedience leading up to it was not how the nation was formed - although it was part of why.

2) No - an armed rebellion is not civil disobedience.

Fledermaus said:

It can be.
Ghandi, the Sufferage movement, civil rights etc. Successfully employed the tactic.
The students at Tiannemen Square, not as successful.

Click to expand...

It was successful at Tiananmen Square too, until troops that didn't have any connection to the locals were brought in.
Just one more reason why citizen soldiers are better than military dynasties.

HK.227 said:

It was successful at Tiananmen Square too, until troops that didn't have any connection to the locals were brought in.
Just one more reason why citizen soldiers are better than military dynasties.

Click to expand...

I forgot that point. You are correct. They had to pull soldiers from a distance away.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily the most appropriate or effective method to accomplish change.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

MovingPictures said:

As much as we don't want to say it to kids, deep down we need them to be rebellious and challenge authority and boundaries.

If they always follow the rules and are never making mistakes, then they're not trying hard enough in life. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want kids stealing and hurting people, but I don't want them being naive sheep that are always following either. Having that mindset will reduced their chances of being able to lead their own lives, one day be their own boss, or think outsides the box in ways that are beneficially to both them and the world around them.

Click to expand...

Balance. The key is balance. Too blindly obedient and people are vulnerable to authoritarianism; too unwilling to respect anyone and we become a society of mutineers.

radcen said:

Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience

Quote from linked article:
"Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent."

Emphasis in bold mine.

Click to expand...

Better solutions at lower cost!

Fledermaus said:

HK.227 said:

It was successful at Tiananmen Square too, until troops that didn't have any connection to the locals were brought in.
Just one more reason why citizen soldiers are better than military dynasties.

Click to expand...

I forgot that point. You are correct. They had to pull soldiers from a distance away.

Click to expand...

No. If it was eventually defeated, then it was defeated. Doesn't matter where that had to bring troops from. Doesn't matter how long they allowed the protestors to do their thing before bringing the hammer down. There was no meaningful sustainable change. It failed.

Peaceful protest can be very effective; violence and/or property destruction just turns people against the protesters.

Legitimate means legal. If it's not legal then it's, by definition, illegitimate. However, without a rational universal morality, the law is arbitrary and, more often than not, unjust. The problem is that every law has it's own independent rationale based on the personal whims of lawmakers. That's why supreme court justices are usually split down the middle. They each have their own rationale for their rulings but none of them are following a universal morality.

Wasn't the Boston Tea Party an act of civil disobedience?

radcen said:

Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience

Quote from linked article:
"Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent."

Emphasis in bold mine.

Click to expand...

Yes it worked for the US. We didn't invent it, but it worked. Civil disobedience is a very patriotic thing to do.

radcen said:

Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience

Quote from linked article:
"Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent."

Emphasis in bold mine.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the only form of civil disobedience allowed is that that the 2nd Amendment establishes - to fight against a gov't that no longer serves The People. Outside of that, if you don't like how things are being ran, you WORK to change them, you don't just go around breaking the law because you don't like it.

HK.227 said:

It was successful at Tiananmen Square too, until troops that didn't have any connection to the locals were brought in.
Just one more reason why citizen soldiers are better than military dynasties.

Click to expand...

Except for on the battlefield, as Bladensburg and numerous other examples showed.

faithful_servant said:

Sorry, but the only form of civil disobedience allowed is that that the 2nd Amendment establishes - to fight against a gov't that no longer serves The People. Outside of that, if you don't like how things are being ran, you WORK to change them, you don't just go around breaking the law because you don't like it.

Click to expand...

Yes, you work to change them....by not obeying unjust laws.

Like, for example, the Jim Crow laws.

Tigerace117 said:

Yes, you work to change them....by not obeying unjust laws.

Like, for example, the Jim Crow laws.

Click to expand...

..and yet it wasn't disobedience that got them changed, it was the people who put int the work to push the changes in those laws through. Civil disobedience is nothing more than the lazy way to try to change things. It only requires a little bit of effort to make people feel like they are doing something meaningful, when the real change is done by those who work at it. My wife's cousin was the guy who got statewide Vote By Mail established in Oregon, because he felt that it was unfair to force people to go to polling station to vote. He saw that we had the technology to do it and instead of blocking traffic on I-5, he went to work to change the law. It took work (years of it), but in the end the law was changed. THAT'S how you create change. Not by causing harm, but by causing change.

faithful_servant said:

Sorry, but the only form of civil disobedience allowed is that that the 2nd Amendment establishes - to fight against a gov't that no longer serves The People. Outside of that, if you don't like how things are being ran, you WORK to change them, you don't just go around breaking the law because you don't like it.

Click to expand...

Ummm... the very point of civil disobedience is precisely that it's not allowed, but you feel strongly enough to protest anyway and take your lumps.

faithful_servant said:

..and yet it wasn't disobedience that got them changed, it was the people who put int the work to push the changes in those laws through. Civil disobedience is nothing more than the lazy way to try to change things. It only requires a little bit of effort to make people feel like they are doing something meaningful, when the real change is done by those who work at it. My wife's cousin was the guy who got statewide Vote By Mail established in Oregon, because he felt that it was unfair to force people to go to polling station to vote. He saw that we had the technology to do it and instead of blocking traffic on I-5, he went to work to change the law. It took work (years of it), but in the end the law was changed. THAT'S how you create change. Not by causing harm, but by causing change.

Click to expand...

Actually, without people having the guts to stand up and disobey unjust laws on the ground, there would be no ability to push though legislative changes in the first place--- the oppressors would have continued on blithely imposing their unconstitutional ideas on Americans.