I probably should "reel myself in" a little and focus on more conventional "protestors and activists". I think I'll focus my argument on "unjust laws". Found a quote from Dr. MLKQuote:
Originally Posted by Rick
"We must continue to stand up, and we must continue to follow the dictates of our conscience, even if that means breaking unjust laws."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pal334
I understand your intent and slightly agree with the point you are trying to make, but...
Innapropriate action and Mass disobedience of law is what this country was founded on. It was not founded on legal action, diplomacy, beurocracy or voting and BTW, we are not a true democracy either. What would Ben Franklin do?
The real point to ponder is it all depends on which side of the fence you are on. I think 250kev made some good points. There is a fine line between patriotism and terrorism.
Do I agree with terrorist acts against our country? Hell no!
Would I willfully accept another government coming into my country and/ or controlling me or placing restrictions on me. Hell no! I would violently protest!
I would try diplomacy and voting first, but when push comes to shove.....
We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases that just doesn't work.
The great part of our system is that you do not have to agree with me, nor I with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwc1969
Innapropriate action and Mass disobedience of law is what this country was founded on. In fact our country was based upon people claiming their rights to freedom. We were not in another country, the folks as a whole made the determination to declare independence. when the then ruling group refused, LEGAL ACTIONwas initiated. When the ruling group visited violence on the independence seeker, THEN more forceful action was started.
There is a fine line between patriotism and terrorism. There certainly is not a fine line! Read above.
We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases that just doesn't work. Other than the "What if" scenarios that have been puked up in this string no one has shown any real instance where "that just doesn't work".
MLK? Isn't he the guy who was murdered by someone else protesting him? :cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by kx250kev
Excellent point. It is a spiral that is completely unproductive and destructiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarge47
Another point worth mentioning is everyone in this fledgling country left some other country to come here. Many because they disagreed with some form of censorship or prejudice. Most because of religious persecution. The point is, if you feel that you are oppressed and can not operate within the framework of law then you are free to do as they did and find another country.
Could I then call the politicians who are trying to fundamentally change our country (subvert the Constitution), terrorists and then treat as such?Quote:
Originally Posted by rwc1969
Or, what if a governor of a state issued an executive order against your religious organization, and that anyone who held your religious beliefs "must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary". Well, it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by kx250kev
Wiki "Extermination Order"
What if.......the earth spirals out into the universe and the planet becomes an ice ball?
Sarky - Just for my own curiosity, how would you have the country run and by whom?
I think the question should be "TO WHOM is civil disobediance ever Justified..." For example, When we decided to become a nation, many of us labeled those fighting towards that end as "patriots," but Britain labeled them as "traitors."
A local woman here was late to work and was speeding, turned a corner, running a stop sign & failing to use her turn signal. A cop saw her and turned on his lights, yet she sped on to work. When he finally caught up to her she said: "I was going to be late to work, your crap can wait!" She was also charged with resiting arrest, was the officer wrong? She obviously thought she was in the right. This all seems to be a matter of perspective. :cool2:
What if ya'lls what if get out of hand? I imagine the answers will too.
Wow, this really seems like a fascinating subject and has created some pretty serious debate. I would love to participate but in order to do so, I'll need someone to explain just one detail to me. What are these things called "laws" that everyone keeps referring to?
Pal 34: The great part of our system is that you do not have to agree with me, nor I with you.
Me: so true! God bless america!
pal34: In fact our country was based upon people claiming their rights to freedom. We were not in another country, the folks as a whole made the determination to declare independence. when the then ruling group refused, LEGAL ACTIONwas initiated. When the ruling group visited violence on the independence seeker, THEN more forceful action was started.
Me: Our country was based upon big businessmen refusing to pay taxes.
If we were not in another country what country were we in? The USA? We were in British colonies!
The folks as a whole had absolutely no say in this. A very small group of wealthy businessmen decided for us without our input.
It was not legal action in the eyes of the ruling group or many of our potential allies for that matter.
Was it legal to dump all that tea in the harbor?
Was it legal to go against the laws of britain?
Was it legal to declare our independance?
Pal34: We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases that just doesn't work. Other than the "What if" scenarios that have been puked up in this string no one has shown any real instance where "that just doesn't work".
Me: Hmm?? did we get a vote to ban assault weapons? I don't recall one.
Was there a vote to ban high powered hunting rifles in the southern third of my state for deer hunting? NO!
Was there a vote to allow dove hunting in Michigan? Yes! Did we win? Yes! Is dove hunting legal in Michigan? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did many a local community get a vote to ban hunting in part or altogether? NO!
Did the lawyers or voting prevent any of this? NO! Did lawyers make money in the process? Yes!
Are we getting a vote to enact or decline national healthcare? Did we vote to decide to go or stay out of Iraq, kuwait, afghanistan, vietnam? Did we vote for or against medicare, social security? No! Someone else is deciding these things for us. We have absolutely no say in the final outcome.
How is that working out for us?
Do I agree with violent protest? Yes! as long as that protest supports my ideals.
I would! but, that's just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by SARKY
Or stay here and make another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Perhaps you need to look-up the difference between a democracy, and a democratic republic. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwc1969
Do I agree with violent protest? Yes! as long as that protest supports my ideals.
Guess that says it all. Have a great day
Sorry, but that just isn't true. We've had this conversation on here before. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence we not rich at all. Most were lawyers, several were physicians, some were merchants and farmers. You'll find that many died as paupers. Big businessmen is a misnomer.Quote:
Originally Posted by RWC
In fact, it originally began because the thirteen colonies were being governed without representation. Officially, the Revolutionary era started in 1763. The taxation laws were only considered wrong because the American colonies lacked representation in the House of Parliament. It wasn't the refusal to pay taxes but to pay taxes without elected representation, which was seen as a violation of the rights of an Englishman.
people behind the iron curtains in germany and russia tried to escape their totalitarian governments. this was against the law.
to those of you who claim that protest should always take the form of legal action, would you say that people defecting from repressive, totalitarian governments are not within reason of doing so because their protest does not take the form of legal action and they should instead have called upon courts and lawyers to hear their case?
I think you may be comparing apple to oranges. I believe most response (at least mine was) were referring to protest in the United States, not in a dictatorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by oneraindog
I think you'll find they chose the courts as a first means. In any case, you're attempting to compare a dictatorship to a republic.
See how we think? Amazing. Great minds and all.
Yes, most of our Founding Fathers WERE Lawyers. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Tell ya' what: You can all call me "Dad," okay? :innocent:
Uncle Dad?
I'm not sure what 2D's response will be, but I'll lay ya even odds it gets moved.
That's fine. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
An inconvenience which could be resolved by just one click of the "Ban Button." :innocent:Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
the original question refered to protesters breaking the law. was it US specific?Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
even if so i think the example still stands.
in this debate people have complained about abstract "what if" scenarios that have no bearing on what actually happens. but that is not a what if scenario. that actually happened. it is a real tangible example of what i think is justifiable reasons for breaking the law in protest.
but if you insist on a domestic example what about the japanese internment camps? a japanese person escaping one of those would not have been justified in doing so if they had not used legal court proceedings?
what about rosa parks sitting at the front of the bus?
during the womens suffrage movement women picketed the white house. this was an illegal action. but wasit unjustified?
speaking of MLK, he once pointed out, though he was not the only one that legal channels are supposed to be open and equal to all in theory but in practice they are sometimes closed or unfairly obstructed. when this is the case the system is not democratic in the way that would make civil disobedience unnecessary.
it has been pointed out by activists and legal professionals alike that judicial review is one of the features of american democracy which is supposed to make civil disobedience unnecessary, then it ironically subverts this goal for to obtain standing to bring an unjust statute to court for review, often a plaintiff must be arrested for violating it
im not comparing anything. im using real world examples of protesters unable to do anything but break the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
I'm not sure, but like crash, I took it to mean in the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by oneraindog
I would think it could be a totally different discussion, in some other countries, as in some places, protesting will get you shot, or hanged.
(BTW, I'm ignoring what Ken said. HAH!):innocent:
they weren't poor and without influence. At the time merchants and farmers were the big business of the era. whether they died as paupers is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
2d2q, pal34 said we were a democracy. I was the one pointing out that in fact we are not a true democracy, but rather a form of representaive democracy. A huge difference between the two.
This debate is kind of off topic though. The point was that our founding forefathers were considered traitors and terrorists by their own government at the time. So, we see by this that there truly is a fine line between terrorism and patriotism. Don't we?
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html
nazi germany is another good example. hitler rose to power in a democracy (no i am not trying to open the "be ware of democracy" argument, just making the point)
so by the rationale ive heard here against civil disobedience, the resistance movement should have instead tried to take hitler to court? or we should have? who should have? what was the legal course of action in that situation? one which came about within a democratic government.
OK OK, I asked nicely in post #52, but everyone just thought "there goes ol' Trax being a smarta$$ again..." so...I understand a couple of laws
1. Law of Gravity
2. Law of the Jungle
No point in protesting or complaining about either one, neither of them can be broken.
Trax, you live in Free Traxistan where they only have alcoholic beverages in place of laws! :sneaky2:
Here's the sixty-four dollar questions, who decides what's right or wrong? How many does it take? Do we need a majority? MLK was fighting bigotry, a moral issue, is morality the rationale that we have to have? Is it the Constitution, ergo "legality" is the clincher?
I believe that the greatest weapons in our arsenal is truth, justice & education. For years I've watched poor misinformed people protest abortion by standing outside abortion clinics holding up signs & using really nasty language toward those that worked there or were getting abortions. I've been ostracized by Pastors & their wives because I refused to go along with that sort of crap, it just creates negativity & stubborness in the minds of the other side! Just recently the "Pro-life" group won a minor victory without firing a shot. For years a certain lady Director at a large abortion clinic believed that her view was the right one; until she watched a live abortion via sonagram! She saw the doomed unborn child who could not escape the confines of it's Mother's womb try to move away from the approaching implement of death, all to no avail. Since then she has done a 180 on her viewpoint. I believe that Mike Huckabee interviewed her on his news program.
You say that voting doesn't work, then who's right & who's wrong? We have to stand up forthe system & try to fix the problems within it. We can only do that by standing together, not as independents. :cool2:
that is a very good point sarge. it has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong and the difference between the 2 is not confined to the borders of the united states so i would argue that examples of justified civil disobedience are valid whether they happen on the moon or in my back yard.
from ghandis quest for indian independence to MLKs call for black equality, many revolutions would go nowhere were it not for civil disobedience as an implement of protest.
Most laws I obey, some I break and often. I personally saw enough stupid protests in DC during the '60s to last me a lifetime. Every time someone got POed in the country they "protested" in DC to make it on national TV. I obeyed the law back then but took strong exception to draft dodgers, military haters, people that didn't like what I had on, how long my hair wasn't. Can't argue with an fool so I might have bent a few civil rights and broke a law or bone or both. I didn't see a protest where laws weren't broken, property destroyed, citizens terrified and inconvenienced and they could have stayed on the monument grounds and got their "message" out to the press which is all they wanted. I did get my opinions across without disturbing the tax paying public.
Here's some links on that abortion deal:
Planned Parenthood director resigns after watching abortion on ultrasound
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115476
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/68761337.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ltrasound.html
Also, remember what your goal is if you decide to get into "civil disobedience." Do you want people to understand and back you? Or are you just somebody who wants to be known as a "loudmouth, attention-seeking anus?" "Hey! Look at me! I never got the attention I felt that I deserved as a child!"
I remember the idiots who laid down in the street in Ca. to protest the war in Iraq; I'd of used 'em for speed bumps! Then there were those women who did it in a unique way by taking off all of their clothes, now that was okay; I've been sending them more crap that they can "protest" but so far no luck! :sneaky2:
Bottom line: What do you hope to accomplish & is your C.D. going to "get it done?" :cool2:
Ghandi was a wife abuser & the FBI had some dirt on MLK...Morality from immoral people? Not for me! :cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by oneraindog
Actually, I was trying to make the point that we are a democratic republic. :blushing:Quote:
Originally Posted by rwc1969
are you serious? so the fact that they were flawed imperfect people negates every bit of their efforts??Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge47
are you really making the argument that the misdeeds of a person completely negates the worth of anything positive that they might do?
if that is true than every good deed ever done is totally without merit because EVERYONE is flawed and NO ONE is completely moral.
Hey. Hold on. I'm completely moral....Oh, shoot. I thought you said morel. Never mind.