Civil Disobedience

[Stroupes]

Civil Disobedience is simply defying the law to promote a moral standard. There are many classifcations of government in today's world, but any can be defied. Breaking the law and undermining the government may seem heroic to the pro-side, but it is nothing more than a savage defiance of standards put in place for the better of

There are ways to promote your agenda safely without breaking laws.

In a democracy civil disobedience cannot be justified. National elections take place regularly, and governments are accountable and can be changed. Members of the public who are unhappy can always lobby their representative or protest within the law, for example by organising marches, petititions, advertising campaigns, or even running candidates of their own for election. All these provide ways of changing laws and policies without the need for deliberate law-breaking.

source: http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=86


There are also many cases where laws are wrongfully instituted, but there is always a better method to protest wrongful laws.
A good example comes from the Civil Rights era where African Americans were segregated in normal society. Justice eventually surfaced, through both methods of civil disobedience, and corrected law.


An Example of Civil Disobedience
Uprising of 1953 - a simple strike by East Berlin construction workers lead to an uprising against the Stalinist German Democratic Republic
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB50/

My stance- Civil Obedience is wrong. While it may, depending on the situation, be noble at heart, there are better alternatives; peaceful protests, petitions, etc.

Is there ever a case where moral integrity overrides deliberate law-breaking?

 

[Aesir]

My stance- Civil Obedience is wrong. While it may, depending on the situation, be noble at heart, there are better alternatives; peaceful protests, petitions, etc.

You do realize those actions only go so far and are only effective against a liberal government? The only reason the civil rights movement remained peaceful was because we had people in the government who were against segregation and wanted equal rights for all. If you didn't have that it would have gotten violent very quickly.

For instance a partied in South Africa started out as a peaceful protest, when it was clear peaceful protest wasn't working they resorted to violence.

Is there ever a case where moral integrity overrides deliberate law-breaking?

Our nation was founded on civil disobedience, there are times when the law makers and people in power just won't budge no matter how much you push them peacefully.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

Civil Disobedience is simply defying the law to promote a moral standard. There are many classifcations of government in today's world, but any can be defied. Breaking the law and undermining the government may seem heroic to the pro-side, but it is nothing more than a savage defiance of standards put in place for the better off.

There are ways to promote your agenda safely without breaking laws.

True, there are ways to promote your agenda without breaking laws. That's a hard point to disagree with. Unless, of course, you're an oppressed minority, who feels they have no voice, no say in what happens. If you're someone who feels they've tried lobbying for change through proper channels, and have had no success. Is it possible? Yes, and often it's done that way. But, when people use civil disobedience to make their point, it is typically because other options are less likely to work.

There are also many cases where laws are wrongfully instituted, but there is always a better method to protest wrongful laws.

Sure, there are other ways to protest laws. But, they aren't always better. If there's a law a large number of people feel is unjust, it could still take twenty years for the court to look at it. The courts are busy. In addition, if you break a law, you get put on trial for breaking said law, and if you can demonstrate in court why the law is unreasonable, they might overturn the law, and then it would have been nullified. Civil disobedience is a powerful tool, if used properly.

A good example comes from the Civil Rights era where African Americans were segregated in normal society. Justice eventually surfaced, through both methods of civil disobedience, and corrected law.

I don't understand how this is a particularly good example for your side. Civil disobedience was a major factor in getting the laws changed. Like, without the disobedience, the law wouldn't have been corrected.

My stance- Civil Obedience is wrong. While it may, depending on the situation, be noble at heart, there are better alternatives; peaceful protests, petitions, etc.

Is there ever a case where moral integrity overrides deliberate law-breaking?

Civil disobedience is always peaceful. Every time.

You do realize those actions only go so far and are only effective against a liberal government? The only reason the civil rights movement remained peaceful was because we had people in the government who were against segregation and wanted equal rights for all. If you didn't have that it would have gotten violent very quickly.

We hit them with fire hoses. Tear gassed them. What part of that wasn't violent?

For instance a partied in South Africa started out as a peaceful protest, when it was clear peaceful protest wasn't working they resorted to violence.

Doesn't that cease to be civil disobedience? I mean, let's look at the word: Civil, and Disobedience. To Disobey something is simple. But, being Civil is a concept most people have forgotten about. It's politeness, or respectful disagreement. You can't punch someone in the face and be civil.

Our nation was founded on civil disobedience, there are times when the law makers and people in power just won't budge no matter how much you push them peacefully.

Again, once you move past peacefully, you stop being in the realm of Civil Disobedience. You enter into aggressive behaviors, attacking people, rioting. None of that is Civil Disobedience.

Are you two sure you're debating Civil Disobedience, and not riots, or mobs, or something else?

I'm interested in this! It'll be fun to debate. :D

 

[Aesir]

We hit them with fire hoses. Tear gassed them. What part of that wasn't violent?

You missed the point entirely, not sure if you're just doing that to be a hard *** or what. To answer your point though, the people who fought peacefully against the government didn't resort to violence they sat there and took those beatings and their only response was to never fight back. it would have gotten a lot more graphic if they fought back.

Doesn't that cease to be civil disobedience? I mean, let's look at the word: Civil, and Disobedience. To Disobey something is simple. But, being Civil is a concept most people have forgotten about. It's politeness, or respectful disagreement. You can't punch someone in the face and be civil.

I thought to quickly nevermind if anyone read this before the edit:

No Civil doesn't mean polite or orderly, in fact civil means in relation to people of the state. Disobedience means defying the state. When someone speaks of civil disobedience it's simply defying the state in an unlawful action. it has nothing to do with being orderly or civil. In this context Civil has a completely different definition then it's layman's usage.

Again, once you move past peacefully, you stop being in the realm of Civil Disobedience. You enter into aggressive behaviors, attacking people, rioting. None of that is Civil Disobedience.

Are you two sure you're debating Civil Disobedience, and not riots, or mobs, or something else?

I'm interested in this! It'll be fun to debate. :D

No because civil disobediance is defying the state in an unlawful manner, in a democracy or a republic if your government is acting in unacceptable manner it's your duty to disobey your government. Whether that be non violent protesting such as ghandi or Martin Luther King. Or by more violent measures such as our founding fathers or Nelson Mandala

 

[Stroupes]

I don't understand how this is a particularly good example for your side.

Well I wasn't really using that example as a pro for my side. Rather a general example to define Civil Disobedience better. I probably should have included that in the Example of Civil Disobedience. My mistake.

Like, without the disobedience, the law wouldn't have been corrected.

That's why I said it was a mixture of both when justice finally came through.

Perhaps some feel civil disobedience is necessary to speed up the court process.
I mean, there's two options if you're trying to get things done: wait, or break the law. As far as choosing EITHER to wait for your idea to be reviewed or going ahead and defying the law.

Obviously some citizens prefer the other side of justice, the peaceful and patient side.
It seemed to have come through for them. You could wait for your case to be heard, or you can spend that time in jail. I wouldn't prefer sitting in prison while my cause weakens due to an impatient, violent protest.
I think it's definately worth the wait, if you're actually smart enough to be patient.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

Well I wasn't really using that example as a pro for my side. Rather a general example to define Civil Disobedience better. I probably should have included that in the Example of Civil Disobedience. My mistake.



That's why I said it was a mixture of both when justice finally came through.

Perhaps some feel civil disobedience is necessary to speed up the court process.
I mean, there's two options if you're trying to get things done: wait, or break the law. As far as choosing EITHER to wait for your idea to be reviewed or going ahead and defying the law.

Obviously some citizens prefer the other side of justice, the peaceful and patient side.
It seemed to have come through for them. You could wait for your case to be heard, or you can spend that time in jail. I wouldn't prefer sitting in prison while my cause weakens due to an impatient, violent protest.
I think it's definately worth the wait, if you're actually smart enough to be patient.

I suppose if you're someone like Clarence Gideon, you have plenty of time. Due to being in prison already. Of course, he's not really an example of Civil Disobedience, but rather of waiting for the law to be changed. Then again, he did appeal to the US Supreme Court, and there had been a clear violation of his rights. Moving on.

Civil Disobedience is peaceful and patient. I cannot stress that enough. You seem to have it in your mind that civil disobedience is all about recklessly breaking the law. It's not. It's about holding a sit in, or forming a wall of people to prevent others from passing. It has nothing to do with violence. Let me emphasize that once more. Civil Disobedience has NOTHING to do with violence. It is nonviolent.

For instance: Mohandas Ghandi practiced Civil Disobedience. I mention this because he's also well known for being a pacifist.

Please address the issue that I've pointed out, which is that you seem to feel Civil Disobedience involves violent actions, and I have pointed out that it very much does not involve that.

 

[Aesir]

Wrong WRONG WRONG!

Everyone in this thread needs to understand what civil disobedience is. Ghandi's version of Civil Disobedience was taken from Thoreau's article on the same subject, but in reality he misinterpreted what Thoreau meant. Civil disobedience is not limited to non-violent actions, that's a different kind of civil disobedience.

Civil disobedient means defying the state, that's it. It has nothing to do with being civil.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

Wrong WRONG WRONG!

Everyone in this thread needs to understand what civil disobedience is. Ghandi's version of Civil Disobedience was taken from Thoreau's article on the same subject, but in reality he misinterpreted what Thoreau meant. Civil disobedience is not limited to non-violent actions, that's a different kind of civil disobedience.

Civil disobedient means defying the state, that's it. It has nothing to do with being civil.

I mentioned this before, but you seemed to have missed it.

No matter, I can mention it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobediance

First, click that link.

http://www.canvasopedia.org/content/canvasopedia/dictionary.htm

And that one.

Now, I'm going to restate what I said before. Civil Disobedience has NOTHING to do with violence. It never has. It never will. And, despite your best attempts to make it about violence, you are wrong. You're free to be wrong as long as you choose. However, if you wish to continue debating this topic, I strongly urge you to research Civil Disobedience.

Did Ghandi have a particularly extreme version of nonviolent practices? Yes, he did. However, Thoreau did not invent the concept of Civil Disobedience, though he did help spread the idea widely.

My point, as it stands, is such: Civil Disobedience is a nonviolent form of protest. It is done by breaking a law, normally in a large number, and knowing that you'll be arrested for it, or attacked, and not resisting.

Forgive my moderate frustration, Aesir, but I have now explained this a second time. Unless you can offer me evidence that the accepted definition (because, what is a phrase but how we define it?) of Civil Disobedience does not exclude violence, I feel you should change your argument's stance. I'm not saying I disagree with your argument, but I disagree with your reasoning for it.

Best of luck on this, but it's 5 in the morning, and I'm off to bed.

 

[Stroupes]

Civil Disobedience is peaceful and patient.

I doubt severely that civil disobedience is peaceful. While it may not always involve violence, it is certainly not being a good little citizen and standing on the side of the street holding a protest sign.

Alternatively civil disobedience can include breaking other laws as a way of drawing attention to the perceived injustice, for example by damage to property, non-payment of fines or taxes, obstruction of building work, and trespassing.

Hardly peaceful/patient.

Please address the issue that I've pointed out, which is that you seem to feel Civil Disobedience involves violent actions, and I have pointed out that it very much does not involve that.

Not all civil disobedience cases involve violence, but they almost always do. As stated in my above quote/statement, there is absolutely nothing peaceful about civil disobedience. If there's no law-breaking, no violence, no disobedience, it's simply a protest. Civil disobedience actually involves disobedience. No kind of disobedience I know about is patient or peaceful.
I think you interpret civil disobedience with the emphasis on "civil," civil meaning peaceful. Civil disobedience through that understanding is incorrect. It would be a contradiction.
In this case, "civil" means going against the state, as Aesir has mentioned.

 

[Aesir]

I mentioned this before, but you seemed to have missed it.

No matter, I can mention it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobediance

Yes I know what the wiki article says, but you guys are just looking at this with a rigid mentality. Civil Disobedience is almost always derived from Thoreau, and he never restricted civil disobedience to just purely non-violent protesting.

http://www.canvasopedia.org/content/canvasopedia/dictionary.htm

And that one.

Like I said it's a common misconception to see Civil Disobedience as purely non-violent because it's usually associated with that, but it's simply not restricted to just thought.

The problem a lot of people seem to have is they confused violence against people and violence against the state as as the same thing, they don't understand the obvious difference between them.. They may even not understand what one means when they say violent. Because violence in this context is often always used interchangeably with coercer.

To give an example, lets say during the Vietnam war me and a few guys who are anti-war have grown tired of our views not being taken seriously in Washington, we have found non-violent protest to be ineffective so we go to a weapons manufacturer during it's closed hours and blow it up.

We're attacking the state and it's policy which we disagree with, this is civil disobedience but it is also violent. It also sends the message to the state that we find their policy's unjust and they should be changed.

Now on the flip side lets say me and that same group instead kidnapped a soldier and then murdered him on live T.V in an attempt to send a message to the state. This isn't the same as the above example, it's violence against a person, you rmessage can easily get lost in this type of violent action and it's really just a waste of life. This is not the same as the previous example.

Now, I'm going to restate what I said before. Civil Disobedience has NOTHING to do with violence. It never has. It never will. And, despite your best attempts to make it about violence, you are wrong. You're free to be wrong as long as you choose. However, if you wish to continue debating this topic, I strongly urge you to research Civil Disobedience.

You're entitled to the opinion that I'm wrong, but I suggest you actually look at what the term Civil Disobedience means. The problem I see is you're all looking at violence as if it's bad because it almost always implies harm against another person. But in this context violence means violence against the state; in democracy/republics the non-violent approach should always be considered first.

Did Ghandi have a particularly extreme version of nonviolent practices? Yes, he did. However, Thoreau did not invent the concept of Civil Disobedience, though he did help spread the idea widely.

Ghandi's form of Civil disobedience was taken from Thoreau's work. Thoreau may not have invented it but he laid the ground work for many resisters to follow. Both Violently and non-violent, I would argue is work was derived from the American way of resisting, when you can't get things done through the proper channels you send a clear message to the state. "We may be civil now, but we won't always be civil"

My point, as it stands, is such: Civil Disobedience is a nonviolent form of protest. It is done by breaking a law, normally in a large number, and knowing that you'll be arrested for it, or attacked, and not resisting.

Forgive my moderate frustration, Aesir, but I have now explained this a second time. Unless you can offer me evidence that the accepted definition (because, what is a phrase but how we define it?) of Civil Disobedience does not exclude violence, I feel you should change your argument's stance. I'm not saying I disagree with your argument, but I disagree with your reasoning for it.

Best of luck on this, but it's 5 in the morning, and I'm off to bed.

However it's not completely limited to just non-violence. Everyone's missing that point and I've corrected that in my previous replies in this post. I suggest you read or skim either one; "The Theory, Practice & Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience"

It makes a case that Thoreau's work can mean both of these actions, and given the fact that Thoreau may not have been the first to come up with the idea he certainly influenced it for both non-violent resisters like MLK and Ghandi, and on the violent side of the Danish Protesters, and American Revolutionists. But one must realize when you allow violent protesting you must remember that your message and actions must attack the state and not individuals.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

Reserved. I'm pointing this out right now, because I'm reading through Thoreau's essay.

In response to a previous post by you, I misinterpreted something you said about violence, but I was mostly saying that we were violent. I thought you were suggesting that there was NO violence on either side, to which I say, "Oh, my mistake." So... my mistake. Anyways, I'll be back after reading through this. >_>;;

~Omni~