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

[radcen]

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.

 

[Aristaeus]

It can be. The suffragettes in the UK probably being the most famous example.

 

[Chomsky]

Of course it is! It was the classic tool of the '60's anti-war movement, and the counter-culture in general, and it helped bring about an end to the war.

Unfortunately for today, even a minor arrest and subsequent dismissal has far greater consequences than a misdemeanor conviction of decades gone by. We live in a zero-tolerance 'records forever' unforgiving society, which is bull****. And not just in terms of criminal records, but in everything. Hell, my kid somehow had a credit report at 14. 14! Even though it was good, what 14 y.o. is perfect? Or going to stay perfect? One of my greatest unhappinesses today, is my kids have no room to screw-up.

If kids and young people can't have a little room to make a minor mistake or two in their youth, they won't reach & extend themselves and will be lacking in spirit. Part of youth, is testing boundaries & limitations, doing high jinks, and finding yourself. And sometimes when you reach & test boundaries, you make mistakes, hopefully minor. It's part of the process.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Of course it is! It was the classic tool of the '60's anti-war movement, and the counter-culture in general, and it helped bring about an end to the war.

Unfortunately for today, even a minor arrest and subsequent dismissal has far greater consequences than a misdemeanor conviction of decades gone by. We live in a zero-tolerance 'records forever' unforgiving society, which is bull****. And not just in terms of criminal records, but in everything. Hell, my kid somehow had a credit report at 14. 14! Even though it was good, what 14 y.o. is perfect? Or going to stay perfect? One of my greatest unhappinesses today, is my kids have no room to screw-up.

If kids and young people can't have a little room to make a minor mistake or two in their youth, they won't reach & extend themselves and will be lacking in spirit. Part of youth, is testing boundaries & limitations, doing high jinks, and finding yourself. And sometimes when you reach & test boundaries, you make mistakes, hopefully minor. It's part of the process.

This is a very good post, and very accurate. It's up to individual businesses and industries to stop relying on criminal records if we are going to get past this issue.

On that note, I'd like to remind everyone that the conservatives they most like to hate -- the Koch brothers -- eliminated the question of whether an applicant had a criminal record on their job applications back in 2015. That's right, they said it was unfair to continue to punish someone who had already been punished in some other way by society for his infractions. Koch Industries does not ask applicants if they've had a felony.

Other companies are going to have to get on board as well if we're ever going to get this changed.

 

[Chomsky]

This is a very good post, and very accurate. It's up to individual businesses and industries to stop relying on criminal records if we are going to get past this issue.

On that note, I'd like to remind everyone that the conservatives they most like to hate -- the Koch brothers -- eliminated the question of whether an applicant had a criminal record on their job applications back in 2015. That's right, they said it was unfair to continue to punish someone who had already been punished in some other way by society for his infractions. Koch Industries does not ask applicants if they've had a felony.

Other companies are going to have to get on board as well if we're ever going to get this changed.

Thanks for the compliment!

 

[MovingPictures]

Of course it is! It was the classic tool of the '60's anti-war movement, and the counter-culture in general, and it helped bring about an end to the war.

Unfortunately for today, even a minor arrest and subsequent dismissal has far greater consequences than a misdemeanor conviction of decades gone by. We live in a zero-tolerance 'records forever' unforgiving society, which is bull****. And not just in terms of criminal records, but in everything. Hell, my kid somehow had a credit report at 14. 14! Even though it was good, what 14 y.o. is perfect? Or going to stay perfect? One of my greatest unhappinesses today, is my kids have no room to screw-up.

If kids and young people can't have a little room to make a minor mistake or two in their youth, they won't reach & extend themselves and will be lacking in spirit. Part of youth, is testing boundaries & limitations, doing high jinks, and finding yourself. And sometimes when you reach & test boundaries, you make mistakes, hopefully minor. It's part of the process.

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.

 

[Chomsky]

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.

Who doesn't say it?

You've never been to my house! :2razz:

 

[Hawkeye10]

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.

We could always go back to teaching "DONT BE A CHUMP!"

Given the poor performance of the adults in recent decades that would take some balls.

 

[KevinKohler]

Yes. Just look at alcohol during prohibition, or pot now.

 

[Fledermaus]

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.

It can be.

Ghandi, the Sufferage movement, civil rights etc. Successfully employed the tactic.

The students at Tiannemen Square, not as successful.

 

[Harshaw]

As long as you're willing to accept the consequences of it, sure.

If you're not, you're just throwing a tantrum.

 

[Serenity]

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”

― Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Parrish]

We wouldn't have a United States of America were it not for civil disobedience.

 

[Helix]

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

yes. look at the civil rights movement. civil disobedience and peaceful protests went a long way towards achieving positive change.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We wouldn't have a United States of America were it not for civil disobedience.

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?

 

[holbritter]

As long as it is a clear difference between that and rioting.

Civil disobedience if fine by me as long as you cause no harm to others or impede others from doing their own thing. And taking the responsibility and consequences that come along with it as well.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

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.

I'll do you one better.

When it comes to big issues, it is the only thing that has ever worked consistently. It's not just effective; it's damn near mandatory.

It reminds the government of their place, and that we outnumber them. It breaks the social malaise of conformity to an unjust statuss quo. It reminds people options exist and change can be implemented any time we want. It is the only option when the current laws are specifically designed to make all other forms of resistance impossible.

Civil disobediance and other legally prohibited resistance is always part of any successful major social change.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Other - a civil rights march blocking traffic is far different than a race riot. A 4/20 event where folks recreationally smoke weed openly is far different than getting other folks (especially minors) addicted to cocaine, heroin or meth for personal profit.

 

[reinoe]

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.

If done right you can really rally people to the cause. We haven't had decent civil disobedience in this country that could rally someone to their cause in a long time. I can't even think of a time where I found the cause so great that I found the "crime" forgivable.

 

[Goshin]

Eh.... yes and no.


It has strong precedent of respect in the US due to the Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Movement, however, had major and legitimate grievances against the status quo; had clearly stated goals and intentions; and had leaders who worked hard to preserve the movement's dignity and also its non-violent status.

In more recent years we've seen some VERY less-restrained "civil disobedience" that involved burning down half a town, and others with dubious grievances and cloudy goals.


So it depends....

 

[MrPeanut]

Civil disobedience is one of the few ways the powerless can do anything against the powerful. It's an extremely important and valid way to change things. A lot of people are referencing kids in this post, but right now in WV the teachers are throwing a wildcat strike. It is illegal to do so in the state, but there has been positive movement towards getting a pay increase for all state workers because of it.

 

[radcen]

It can be.

Ghandi, the Sufferage movement, civil rights etc. Successfully employed the tactic.

The students at Tiannemen Square, not as successful.

The premise of the question doesn't hinge on success. Nothing is ever always successful.

 

[radcen]

Eh.... yes and no.


It has strong precedent of respect in the US due to the Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Movement, however, had major and legitimate grievances against the status quo; had clearly stated goals and intentions; and had leaders who worked hard to preserve the movement's dignity and also its non-violent status.

In more recent years we've seen some VERY less-restrained "civil disobedience" that involved burning down half a town, and others with dubious grievances and cloudy goals.


So it depends....

The link, though, specifically does not include violence.

 

[radcen]

yes. look at the civil rights movement. civil disobedience and peaceful protests went a long way towards achieving positive change.

This seems to me to be an issue where everybody knows the right answer, but when push comes to shove, forgets the right answer if it doesn't jive with their individual desired world view or result.

I can name one person in this thread already who has said civil disobedience is valid and crucial, yet dismisses the part about willingness to accept consequences in another current thread over recent student protests re mass shootings. I can only conclude that this person is being somewhat disingenuous.

Not you, just to be clear, and I won't name names. At least not yet.

 

[Fledermaus]

The premise of the question doesn't hinge on success. Nothing is ever always successful.

True. I vote yes.