By which I mean civil disobedience, the act of deliberately breaking the law in order to change a law, or even just to advance a principle.
One of the most famous acts of civil disobedience was the Boston Tea Party but more recently the largest civil disobedience in Canada occurred when 200 people protested against the Keystone pipeline.
Is it justifiable to break the law in order to change the law?
Well I would say that it depends quite much on what law we're talking about. For example, here in Sweden we can get fined for not wearing a helmet or not wearing a seat belt. It is a very trivial form of "civil disobedience" to disobey that law but I fail to see the reason why the government would have the right to order me to wear a helmet or pay them a hefty fine.
I'm also a die-hard advocate of free speech. In Sweden you can get arrested for "hets mot folkgrupp". (I apologize, I do not know the correct english legal term. "Incitement to racial hatred" is the direct translation) I understand the basic principle of such a law but no matter how much I despise certain ideologies, I cannot support something like that and would not see people breaking that law as criminals as they are just exercising free speech.
These are two pretty trivial cases of civil disobedience but is in my opinion still relevant to the discussion. I could debate this further and I surely will at a later time but for now my answer to the "rhetorical" question is: Yes, in some cases I do believe that it is right to break the law for what you believe in.
In the US we have the ability to change the law through democratic means. We secure enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot, and then on the next voting cycle the measure goes to vote. If it's voted in by popular vote then we bring it into law.
That isn't always the case though is it?
In the UK we have a democracy, yet we can protest against certain laws and we're ignored. Laws get pushed through Parliament without consultation with the electorate and the only time we get to express our opinion is at the general election.
Like the US, we have a two party system (although we have a third party, they've only seen office this time through a coalition, they wouldn't be able to do it alone) so one party passes a law we don't like, we have to rely on the other party disliking it. If they are all for the law, it doesn't matter who we vote for, it remains law.
We may live in so-called democracies, but what we think is irrelevant for the most part. As long as the candidates up for election can appease us with something or other that is better than the other guy, that is all we can have.
Sometimes civil disobedience is the only way to change a law, to make the powers that be listen.
I do not think soThe law has been set out by the vaste majority of the people in the country.If you for example break the law for something you believe in,adnat the same time 15 other people get the same idea, everything wuld turn into chaos!!That is why our government has set out all these laws,to protect everyone.
I do not think soThe law has been set out by the vaste majority of the people in the country.If you for example break the law for something you believe in,adnat the same time 15 other people get the same idea, everything wuld turn into chaos!!That is why our government has set out all these laws,to protect everyone.
But there was a time when it was acceptable and legal to have a slave. Civil disobedience played a large part in abolishing slavery, so without breaking the laws, we may still accept slavery in our day to lives.
If a government doesn't listen to its people then what is the point of it? I'm not saying you have to abolish it, its obviously your choice. I'm just saying if a government stops listening to its people then why keep it?
The problem is that they do listen to the people, but they control the people. They manipulate mob mentality in order to do anything they want to do, and receive enormous support for it.
The problem is that they do listen to the people, but they control the people. They manipulate mob mentality in order to do anything they want to do, and receive enormous support for it.
(I'm sensing an allusion to 1984) that isn't always the case. mob mentality can only go so far before the ones who are better informed than the mob rises up and disproves what the goverment is doing as right. sure, the number of well-educated people in each country varries, which is why some of these dictatorships in the ME are only now starting to come around.
(I'm sensing an allusion to 1984) that isn't always the case. mob mentality can only go so far before the ones who are better informed than the mob rises up and disproves what the goverment is doing as right. sure, the number of well-educated people in each country varries, which is why some of these dictatorships in the ME are only now starting to come around.
lol, I could point you to many various novels that confirm what I said.
More than happy to do some reading (when I've finished with Homer) so go ahead... give me examples.
Have to admit, I'd love some short sweet examples on the web to make it easier to digest, but seriously, go ahead with the books. Knowledge can only make me more rounded, and the more books I read, the more knowledge.
And if the teacher holds the food and won't let it go?
whit believe 1, you just shoot the guy. thats where you came for anyway.
whit believe 2, you ask the food, he says no you wait for it to steal or just go seek some other food.
anyway what i ment whit "i believe i die if i don't eat soon" then i don't mean "oh i'm soo.. hungry i havn't eaten in 16 hours." i mean that your so hungry you actualy believe your going to die.
