Requirement to follow rule of law, civil disobedience (part 2)

[Hooboy !!]

Rule of law

The rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance.

What this definition does not do is elaborate on the type of governmental authority, of which there are many kinds.

Anarchists will likely disagree, but I believe the benefits of rule of law are pretty obvious: maintain order and a smoothly functioning society. I am not interested in debating the value of rule of law and am assuming that it is necessary for a successful human society.

From the Wiki article:

Thomas Aquinas defined a valid law as being one that

is in keeping with Reason
was established by a proper authority
is for the purpose of achieving good
and was properly communicated to all.
There are two concepts in here that are open to debate I believe: "proper authority" and "good".

What is a "proper" authority? There is no right answer to this question and it is quite subjective, depending on your world view. Ask a libertarian or a socialist this question and you will get two very different answers. For this discussion, I would like to assume that the only proper authority is the one to which all governed consent to. Typically, this means a democratic society or one where all members have an opportunity to positively provide their consent. From the Preamble to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution):

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

The concept of "good" is probably a lot harder to settle on, given how subjective it is. I do not believe in universal truth, or in objective morality. I do not believe in absolutes. I do think it is possible to settle on some general principles though, based on tendencies and probabilities. From the Declaration of Independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Justifications for civil disobedience

It seems simple then to me. The only justifications for civil disobedience is a law that violates any of the above principles:

- Is irrational
- Was not established by the proper authority
- Did not serve "good"
- Was not explained or communicated

Determining if something is irrational should not be too difficult. This is what the purpose of debate is. There is a hidden assumption there though that I do not think people understand. Just because something is rational does not mean that everyone will arrive at the exact same conclusions. Usually they do and that is why we live in a democracy. The assumption being that most people are rational and will arrive at the same conclusions when presented with a rational argument.

Determining the proper authority primarily hinges on due process and a person's faith in the process.

Determining if something is "good", given the subjectivity of "good", will require establishing a baseline for the purposes of comparison. This was provided for us in our Constitution's Bill of Rights and subsequent ammendments.

I think it is pretty obvious that without communicating a law and making sure that is well understood is essentially an arbitrary law. It is simply impossible for a person to follow a law if they do not know what it is.

So then, what would be justifications for civil disobedience?

- A law is irrational? Who says so? If the majority of people do not agree with you, it does not matter how right you think you are or how well you are able to present your argument.

- You do not accept the legitimacy of the current government? Why not? It has been in existence for over 200 years. Long enough to earn its credentials.

- You think a law is immoral? Where do you receive your moral authority from?

- Never heard of the law or do not understand the law? This could be a problem I suppose. Some laws are written ambiguously on purpose to allow it the opportunity to evolve and adapt over time with the society. But, this is what the purpose of the courts is, to interpret the law.

Civil disobedience is unnecesarry at the least, and counter-productive to the goals of living in a society at the most.

[laughing dog]

Civil disobedience is unnecesarry at the least, and counter-productive to the goals of living in a society at the most.
What evidence do you have that
1) India's home rule, and
2) US civil rights achievements,
would have occurred more quickly without the aid of civil disobedience?

[Karalora]

Hooboy !!, in one instance of your OP, you define a legitimate government as "one which all governed consent to". Then you go on to say that the U.S. government is legitimate by virtue of having been in place for over 200 years.

Which is it?

Also, is there a difference between objecting to an institution of government and objecting to the individuals currently in power? For instance, I think the Office of the Presidency is a proper authority, but George W. Bush is a schmuck who rose to power and remains in power by a series of cheats and flukes, whom I wouldn't trust to manage a lemonade stand, let alone a country.

[perfessor]

So then, what would be justifications for civil disobedience?

- A law is irrational? Who says so? If the majority of people do not agree with you, it does not matter how right you think you are or how well you are able to present your argument.

- You do not accept the legitimacy of the current government? Why not? It has been in existence for over 200 years. Long enough to earn its credentials.

- You think a law is immoral? Where do you receive your moral authority from?

- Never heard of the law or do not understand the law? This could be a problem I suppose. Some laws are written ambiguously on purpose to allow it the opportunity to evolve and adapt over time with the society. But, this is what the purpose of the courts is, to interpret the law.

Civil disobedience is unnecesarry at the least, and counter-productive to the goals of living in a society at the most.

James Madison wrote that one purpose of the Constitution as written was to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. In your listing above, I see great weight placed in the idea that rationality and morality are grounded solely in a majority vote. I think that majority opinion needs to be constantly held to standards which were (admittedly imperfectly - we're human after all) defined in the Constitution.

For example, when the Constitution defined who was eligible to vote, it never said "except Negroes of course." And yet, duly elected officials in various states felt free to exercise their legitimate authority to curtail voting rights. A majority of the electorate presumably agreed with them. In what sense was it wrong to protest these laws? Obviously, writing a letter to a congressman was not going to do the trick.

Also, there's a big difference between CD and mob action. Maybe you should tell us what you think the term means. It's possible that under some "definitions" of CD, I might agree with you. As practiced by Ghandi and MLK, it seems like a legitimate approach.

[Chris Porter]

Secret US rules/laws (http://www.slate.com/id/2109922/)

Problems with secret laws are that it can't be determined by people affected by the law as to whether or not the person demanding obediance to the law is doing so in a lawful manner. Nor can it be determined if the organization establishing the law did so in a lawful manner. If a stranger comes up to you in an airport and demands to see your passport, should you do so? It may be unlawful not to do so.

[RED DAVE]

So, here's what all that blather comes down to.

Civil disobedience is unnecesarry at the least, and counter-productive to the goals of living in a society at the most.So, I guess that Gandhi, Martlin Luther King, sit-ins, freedom rides, etc., were unnecessary and counter-productive.

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy !!, in one instance of your OP, you define a legitimate government as "one which all governed consent to". Then you go on to say that the U.S. government is legitimate by virtue of having been in place for over 200 years.
There are two issues. The first is how legitimate it is. An imposed government is illegitimate. The second is credibility as in how useful, functional, serviceable, etc. the government is. Or in other words how effective it is.

As it relates to consent. No one living today was around to form the US constitution. We do though have the right to leave if we do not wish to consent. So, by remaining... this is providing tacit consent.

Also, is there a difference between objecting to an institution of government and objecting to the individuals currently in power? For instance, I think the Office of the Presidency is a proper authority, but George W. Bush is a schmuck who rose to power and remains in power by a series of cheats and flukes, whom I wouldn't trust to manage a lemonade stand, let alone a country.
This is what elections are for. Like I mentioned in the previous thread, there is a concept of "inertia" where it takes time first to know how well a government meets the demands of the populace and second, to remove them and replace them with another.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

Hooboy!!:

Under that definition, slavery in the US was a valid law, as was the Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act was widely ignored in the North. This, of course, also ignores the runaway slaves themselves ignoring the laws enacting their slavery.

[Hooboy !!]

James Madison wrote that one purpose of the Constitution as written was to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. In your listing above, I see great weight placed in the idea that rationality and morality are grounded solely in a majority vote. I think that majority opinion needs to be constantly held to standards which were (admittedly imperfectly - we're human after all) defined in the Constitution.
Not just in that, but also in the concept of "good". This is the purpose of the Bill of Rights, to establish a benchmark against which all laws are measured. If the law violates this benchmark, no matter how many wish it to be law, it cannot be law.

For example, when the Constitution defined who was eligible to vote, it never said "except Negroes of course." And yet, duly elected officials in various states felt free to exercise their legitimate authority to curtail voting rights.
I agree. It seems absurd to have to spell out the incredibly obvious. Making constitutional ammendments to protect certain individuals specifically makes no sense what-so-ever. It should be understood that the right to vote applies to everyone.

Also, there's a big difference between CD and mob action. Maybe you should tell us what you think the term means. It's possible that under some "definitions" of CD, I might agree with you. As practiced by Ghandi and MLK, it seems like a legitimate approach.
Two things. First, CD can occur without a mob. For me, the issue of CD in conjuntion with a mob is a very dangerous thing. Second, I am not really interested in discussing the justification for CD in specific cases. However, because it has been brought up twice now... in the case of India, they were not living under a democratic, therefore legitimate, government.

[Hooboy !!]

Secret US rules/laws (http://www.slate.com/id/2109922/)

Problems with secret laws are that it can't be determined by people affected by the law as to whether or not the person demanding obediance to the law is doing so in a lawful manner. Nor can it be determined if the organization establishing the law did so in a lawful manner. If a stranger comes up to you in an airport and demands to see your passport, should you do so? It may be unlawful not to do so.
Correct.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

There are two issues. The first is how legitimate it is. An imposed government is illegitimate.

So the post WWII governments of Italy, Germany, and Japan were illegitmate? Also: what does that tell about the government in Iraq?

[Hooboy !!]

So, here's what all that blather comes down to.

So, I guess that Gandhi, Martlin Luther King, sit-ins, freedom rides, etc., were unnecessary and counter-productive.

RED DAVE
I do not agree with this. Ignoring the India example, because I have already addressed that.

As for the Civil Rights movement goes... Its hard to say. The movement towards civil rights began 100 years before MLK Jr was even born and significant progress was made through debate alone, to the point where this society fractured severely enough to result in a bloody civil war. I would say this is a pretty good demonstration of how effective rational debate can be to affect social change. A good question was asked though... how long is long enough? How much time should be allowed for social change to occur?

I do not have an answer for this question.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Hooboy !!: It seems absurd to have to spell out the incredibly obvious. Making constitutional ammendments to protect certain individuals specifically makes no sense what-so-ever. It should be understood that the right to vote applies to everyone.

And when the governing bodies consistently (for generations) do not understand that and/or understand it, but do not apply those rights to everyone?

What other choice is left, but civil disobedience of some kind to either educate the voters, so that they will vote accordingly, or force the legislature to self correct past oversight/injustice?

MORE: Second, I am not really interested in discussing the justification for CD in specific cases.

Then what's your point? If CD ever works, then it is justified and your OP conclusion is countered.

:huh:

[Hooboy !!]

And when the governing bodies consistently (for generations) do not understand that and/or understand it, but do not apply those rights to everyone?

What other choice is left, but civil disobedience of some kind to either educate the voters, so that they will vote accordingly, or force the legislature to self correct past oversight/injustice?
Or make ammendments that spell it out for the incredibly dense.

Then what's your point? If CD ever works, then it is justified and your OP conclusion is countered.

:huh:
What works in one situation does not necessarily work in every situation. You know, I spent quite a bit of time explaining this already.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Hooboy !!: The movement towards civil rights began 100 years before MLK Jr was even born and significant progress was made through debate alone, to the point where this society fractured severely enough to result in a bloody civil war.

That, in turn, resulted in free men not being granted their freedom in so many local/State instances, that the mind boggles.

MORE: I would say this is a pretty good demonstration of how effective rational debate can be to affect social change.

I would humbly disagree. Rational debate arguably led to an irrational civil war; ironically the ultimate act of CD.

MORE: A good question was asked though... how long is long enough? How much time should be allowed for social change to occur?

And how much suffering and injustice needs to be tolerated before it is no longer tolerated? In the case of a no-brainer like enslaving another human being, it looks like about a hundred years and counting for many.

:huh:

MORE: I do not have an answer for this question.

Yet this curiously doesn't stop you from concluding: "Civil disobedience is unnecesarry at the least, and counter-productive to the goals of living in a society at the most."

Odd that the specific cases you don't want to go into demonstrate quite clearly that your conclusion is unwarranted and that the opposite is actually the case; CD is necessary and is productive to the goals of living in a society.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

Or make ammendments that spell it out for the incredibly dense.

The US Constitution did not grant everyone the right to vote--it specified landowners at first. Also, prior to the 13th ammendment, slavery was legal, and, legally under the Dred Scott case, blacks were considered an inherrently inferior group of people that lacked standing to sue in any matter!



- A law is irrational? Who says so? If the majority of people do not agree with you, it does not matter how right you think you are or how well you are able to present your argument.

So slavery then was rational?

- You think a law is immoral? Where do you receive your moral authority from?

So enslaved people had no right claim that their situation was immoral, yet their masters could claim that it was?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Hooboy !!: Or make ammendments that spell it out for the incredibly dense.

It is that incredible denseness that typically results in CD to bring to light the incredible denseness that forces the legislature to make ammendments.

MORE: What works in one situation does not necessarily work in every situation.

Irrelevant and counter to your conclusion that CD is not necessary.

MORE: You know, I spent quite a bit of time explaining this already.

Bully for you. That doesn't change the fact that your OP conclusion is not warranted or justified.

[laughing dog]

Still waiting for a rational/evidence that home rule for India or civil rights would have occurred faster (or at the same pace) without civil disobedience.

[JamesBannon]

The argument in the OP seems very similar to the argument made by a certain philosopher; namely, Kant. While I agree with much of what Kant has to say about constitutional government there is one thing I flatly disagree with; namely. his prohibition on rebellion. Rebellion is a legitimate form of protest should the need arise. Sovereignty lies with the citizen, not with governments, kings or princes, and to my mind this is non-negotiable. This means that the citizens have as a body every right to remove the government by force if necessary should that government violate the democratic principles on which it was founded.

[Hooboy !!]

The argument in the OP seems very similar to the argument made by a certain philosopher; namely, Kant. While I agree with much of what Kant has to say about constitutional government there is one thing I flatly disagree with; namely. his prohibition on rebellion. Rebellion is a legitimate form of protest should the need arise. Sovereignty lies with the citizen, not with governments, kings or princes, and to my mind this is non-negotiable. This means that the citizens have as a body every right to remove the government by force if necessary should that government violate the democratic principles on which it was founded.
Agreed.

[JamesBannon]

Then why do you think civil disobedience is so wrong? We have a moral duty to oppose immoral laws and sometimes civil disobedience is the only tool at our disposal.

[laughing dog]

What works in one situation does not necessarily work in every situation.
If you are admitting that civil disobedience is effective sometimes, then you are contradicting your OP. :wide:

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
So, here's what all that blather comes down to.

So, I guess that Gandhi, Martlin Luther King, sit-ins, freedom rides, etc., were unnecessary and counter-productive.I do not agree with this. Ignoring the India example, because I have already addressed that.

As for the Civil Rights movement goes... Its hard to say. The movement towards civil rights began 100 years before MLK Jr was even born and significant progress was made through debate alone, to the point where this society fractured severely enough to result in a bloody civil war. I would say this is a pretty good demonstration of how effective rational debate can be to affect social change. A good question was asked though... how long is long enough? How much time should be allowed for social change to occur?[/quote]Putting aside the incoherence of this remark, why the fuck should somehone who is oppressed have to wait any time at all.

From Hooboy !!:
I do not have an answer for this question.I'll be you don't.

In the end, civil disobedience comes to to values. What should we do if our society is engaging in truly horrendous behavior, according to one's values. It seems to that not to engage in civil disobedience or some other form of protest is ridiculous at best.

RED DAVE

[Pavlov's Dog]

The ironic thing is that our government that Hooboy is suggesting we always obey and never show civil disobedience to, was created through essentially civil disobedience. The irony meter should be exploding. Or maybe Hooboy is okay with violent insurrection, but not non-violent insurrection? I don't know what the hell he is getting at.

[Hooboy !!]

If you are admitting that civil disobedience is effective sometimes, then you are contradicting your OP. :wide:
No, I am not. In my OP, I am citing a specific case.

[Hooboy !!]

why the fuck should somehone who is oppressed have to wait any time at all.
They don't have to, but if they think they are assuming the moral high ground... they would be wrong. If they think that they do not deserve to be put down violently, they would be wrong.

What should we do if our society is engaging in truly horrendous behavior, according to one's values. It seems to that not to engage in civil disobedience or some other form of protest is ridiculous at best.
This is a personal choice.

ETA

The important point in this statement was "some other form of protest", which leads me to think you are forming a false dichtomy here. Refraining from CD is not the same as refraining from other forms of protest.

[Bonniedundee]

- A law is irrational? Who says so? If the majority of people do not agree with you, it does not matter how right you think you are or how well you are able to present your argument.A majority could send you to a concentration camp and of course you are describing an abstract gov't we don't live in a democratic society, we live in an oligarchical one.

- You do not accept the legitimacy of the current government? Why not? It has been in existence for over 200 years. Long enough to earn its credentials.
If you do not consent to it, it cannot legitimately govern you on your property, to do so is tyranny and most importantly it destroys any notion that the government is based on consent and popular sovereignty, if you cannot withdraw your consent how can you have been said to voluntarily consented?

- You think a law is immoral? Where do you receive your moral authority from?
Natural law. You have the right to engage in any non-invasive behaviour if you do not have this right you cannot be said to really be in full control of your body and mind. You do not own yourself to put it another way, and then there's the question how can you not own yourself and yet other humans can and they can somewhat own others as well, where exactly do they derive such authority?

All of this links back to Herbert Spencer's excellent argument about the right to ignore the state.

http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm

Again here are you giving all power to the state and yet you accuse all socialists, completely falsely, of doing this. Rather ironic don't you think.

[laughing dog]

No, I am not. In my OP, I am citing a specific case. Under the laws of logic, it is a contradiction. Stating X is ineffective and/or counter-productive, but admitting of examples were X is either effective or productive is contradictory.

[Hooboy !!]

Again here are you giving all power to the state and yet you accuse all socialists, completely falsely, of doing this. Rather ironic don't you think.
In order for a state to funtion properly, you kind of have to give it power and place a certain amount of trust in it, even if it is not obvious to you that it is doing what it was intended to do.

I do reserve the right to tear it down though. I am not opposed to civil disobedience or even military insurrection, but if it gets to that point, the state would have to be fucked up enough that I do not think it is possible to save it. At which point, I would indeed be nihilistic. Birth from death. Sometimes... war is necessary.

[Bonniedundee]

In order for a state to funtion properly, you kind of have to give it power and place a certain amount of trust in it, even if it is not obvious to you that it is doing what it was intended to do.A democratic state in theory is just delegated the power of the people who consent to let it govern them.
If they are supposed to have consented then they must be able to withdraw consent and not pay taxes, otherwise it is absurd to say they have consented.

I do reserve the right to tear it down though. I am not opposed to civil disobedience or even military insurrection, but if it gets to that point, the state would have to be fucked up enough that I do not think it is possible to save it. At which point, I would indeed be nihilistic. Birth from death. Sometimes... war is necessary.
All states are like this, everyone is founded by conquest usually external sometimes internal, each one is funded by coercion and each one's main function is the economic exploitation of the masses by the ruling classes.

Show me a state that actually interferes only to enforce everyone's rights to engage in non-invasive behaviour.
A state that doesn't tax involuntarily, a state that doesn't have victimless crime laws, or moral laws against drugs or prostitution, a state that doesn't intervene in free exchange, generally to suppor the wealthy.

[virtuzoso]

I have YET to see even one example that shows where actual CIVIL disobedience has been harmful. Further, a single example would be insufficient, youd have to show some line of reasoning that civil disobedience is actually harmful the majority of the time. As someone pointed out already, the irony that our own country was more or less born out of civil disobedience makes me wonder what your actual point is.

[thefugitivesaint]

Questions in the previous thread concerning your equavocation of "civil disobedience" and "terrorism" went unanswered. You attempted to conflate these terms and then sought to justify the authority of the State over the citizen. As per your previous behavior regarding debate, you ignored substansive criticism while continuing to assert your position and this continuation of that previous thread has clarified nothing.

Since the little preamble you offered supplies no real basis for your conclusions, i am going to by-pass it entirely and address your closing remarks, which address nothing but your own flawed premises.

Hooboy:
So then, what would be justifications for civil disobedience?

What would be the justification for civil disobedience? But, to answer this we would have to first agree on your use of the term "civil disobedience" in this thread and i do not. Having stated this, let's examine your "conclusions" and see where they lead us.

- A law is irrational? Who says so? If the majority of people do not agree with you, it does not matter how right you think you are or how well you are able to present your argument.

If the ethical rejection by individuals and minorities of specific policies have no basis, then the "rule of law" defended by the "majority" is equally invalid. Arguing against a minority position by refering to a "majority" is equally unfounded (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) as an argument. "Majority" opinion does not mean that the opinion held is just, fair or even rational. This is also reflected in the system of law that we currently possess.

Laws are not Platonic ideals but created functions whose means and ends are imperfect. These laws are meant to reflect the moral/ethical standards of a culture but not all of us share the same perspectives. For example, if a "majority" of people declares that the teaching of evolution in public schools should, once again, become a criminal act because they believe that such a practice violates their Christian belief, would it be a "rational" law? If a "majority" declares Evolution "unscientific" and codifies this into law, would it then be "unscientific?" to repeat myself, just because an opinion is held by a "majority" does not make the opinion held justifiable.

- You do not accept the legitimacy of the current government? Why not? It has been in existence for over 200 years. Long enough to earn its credentials.

Classic logical fallacy, the appeal to tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html). There is no reason for me to address this as the link i provided says what i intended to say. I refer you to the third example provided at the bottom of the link. You might find it illuminating.

- You think a law is immoral? Where do you receive your moral authority from?

Again, a way of restating your "majority" assertion but from a different angle. Where does moral authority rest? In the hand of the State or the hands of the citizens of said State? Where does the State derive its "moral authority?" Where do people derive theirs? If there is no common ground to begin with, no foundation for mutual appeals, then your question is already rendered meaningless.

"Civil disobedience" makes an appeal to our commonalities while violence rejects them and often reflects a failure to even acknowledge that commonalities exist. "Civil disobedience" is technically lawlessness but its ends do not reject law in the manner that a violent act does. The ends of "civil disobedience" is to amend social opinion and find inclusion in a system where none existed. Violence does not seek this end but seeks to remove existing forms for entirely new ones, destroying what it cannot change. "Civil disobedience" accepts the principles of "rule by law" but does not accept the idea that all laws need be obeyed. Historically speaking, the most terrible things-war, genocide, and slavery- have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience. I don't need a "source" to make ethical claims because none such exists. My "moral authority" rests on the ends i seek to produce in the world and one of my "ends" is to keep vigilant of my (and societies) means. Sounds shakey? Good. We should never get to comfortable with our ethical/moral principles and we should never abdicate our responsibility to weigh the ethical/moral consequences of our social acts.

None of this, i think, really answers the question.

- Never heard of the law or do not understand the law? This could be a problem I suppose. Some laws are written ambiguously on purpose to allow it the opportunity to evolve and adapt over time with the society. But, this is what the purpose of the courts is, to interpret the law.

And, this appeals to the authority of the State again. the key here is the term "interprets." The court process is one that, no matter how codified and systematic, still relies on the judgement of individuals and their perspective on any given law. This means that individuals are granted great power to affect the wider social environment by the decisions they make. To assume that this process should be the only one we utilize as citizens is to assume that only State sanctioned procedures are valid. Again, historically speaking, we have ample evidence to demonstrate that the process of appealing to "courts" have failed those making the appeal and leaving "extra-legal" action as the only means to demand change. To think that the State makes concessions to the citizens because they ask it to do so through its courts is naive. America was founded by "extra-legal" means after appeals to the English legal system failed. Appealing to the authority of courts is simply an appeal to authority and sometimes this appeal needs to be rejected.

Civil disobedience is unnecesarry at the least, and counter-productive to the goals of living in a society at the most.

Assertion. Where is the proof that "civil disodedience" is "counter-productive?" Labor standards, equal rights for non-whites and women and countless other social practices were not handed to people by a thoughtful and benign system but were piecemeal additions fought and won for by people who demanded to be accepted as human beings, with equal rights under the law. Instead of tearing apart that system, "civil disobedience" was used to bring about reform and change. How anyone could see the proliferating effects of these actions as "counter-productive" to society is beyond my comprehension.

Take the following statement:
It should be understood that the right to vote applies to everyone.

But, hooboy, it was NOT understood that this "right" applies to everyone. This "right" did not apply to everyone until demands to participate in the system became banners carried in the streets. People demanded in and asserted themselves in a discourse they were excluded from. People stood up and started yelling instead of sitting meekly in obedience to existing law. Understanding came much later and only after protracted struggle. are we worse as a society because this struggle involved "extra-legal" means?

As to your historical knowledge concerning this topic:
As for the Civil Rights movement goes... Its hard to say. The movement towards civil rights began 100 years before MLK Jr was even born and significant progress was made through debate alone*, to the point where this society fractured severely enough to result in a bloody civil war.*emphasis mine

This is, of course, false. There was en effort, one that grew, of secretly and openly defying the law(s). The actions of John Brown were hardly matters of words and the Abolitionists did not rely solely on "debate alone." For that matter, the Klu Klux Klan did not sit down at the table and pleasantly "debate" the issue of equal rights. Besides, if "...significant progress was made through debate alone..", why did a societal "fracture" happen? Your paragraph makes no sense as it asserts to opposing POV.

For another act of confusion there is the following:
I am not opposed to civil disobedience or even military insurrection, but if it gets to that point, the state would have to be fucked up enough that I do not think it is possible to save it. At which point, I would indeed be nihilistic. Birth from death. Sometimes... war is necessary.

Once again you conflate terms. You assume that the situation that would present the need for "military insurrection" is equal to the situation that gives rise to "civil disobedience." Again, you conclude that CD is an act of violence and one that is inherently nihilistic. Again, you are wrong.

"Civil disobedience" is an effort to seek redress, not to seek destruction. (Change is not equal to destruction even if some destructive acts are motivated by change.) CD and "Military insurrection" cannot be weighed on the same scale. CD might act outside of the current system but its intent is a constructive one. It's illegality is the only similarity you would be justified in claiming but the ends sought by participants of CD are of an entirely different breed from terrorists and those who take to arms.

The fact that those who constructed the American constitution were distrustful of power and those who seek it only adds to my own distrust of institutional power. To "trust" those in power is foolish and to rely on their "interpretations" of law is equally so. "Civil disobedience" might be unacceptable to the authoritarian but so is any act of disodedience, no matter how small the infraction. The "rule of law" becomes a tyranny only when we submit to it entirely. CD helps keep the tradition of rebellion alive and our institutions of law in check. It is the balance of the citizen against the power of the State. "Counter-productive?" Only to the authoritarian.
-theSaint

[Hooboy !!]

A democratic state in theory is just delegated the power of the people who consent to let it govern them.
If they are supposed to have consented then they must be able to withdraw consent and not pay taxes, otherwise it is absurd to say they have consented.
I agree to a point. It is infeasible to deconstruct and reconstruct a society on a whim though.

All states are like this, everyone is founded by conquest usually external sometimes internal, each one is funded by coercion and each one's main function is the economic exploitation of the masses by the ruling classes.

Show me a state that actually interferes only to enforce everyone's rights to engage in non-invasive behaviour.
A state that doesn't tax involuntarily, a state that doesn't have victimless crime laws, or moral laws against drugs or prostitution, a state that doesn't intervene in free exchange, generally to suppor the wealthy.
And I thought I was cynical. I do not put much faith in any form of state, but it beats chaos.

[Hooboy !!]

i am going to by-pass it entirely
Which therefore renders the rest of your post inconsequential. I did read enough of it to figure out that much of your complaints were addressed in my OP however. Perhaps if you were to actually read what you were responding to first and re-post, I will have something to reply to.

[Bonniedundee]

I agree to a point. It is infeasible to deconstruct and reconstruct a society on a whim though.I'm not really talking about society, just the individual.

If an individual removes his consent, he should be able to take his property, or at least the property he works on(as long as he owns it of course.) and lives in directly(a block of flats or shopping mall you own may be a little different.), and stop paying taxes and remove himself from the control of the state, otherwise no one can be said to have really consented to the gov't at all.

This has nothing to do with the myth of the seperate entity called society, just each individual.

And I thought I was cynical. I do not put much faith in any form of state, but it beats chaos.States thrive on chaos, they create chaos, only voluntary and free actions and associations can create order.

There is no reason to believe that a group of individuals who are funded by coercion and have a monopoly over legitimatised coercion in the area can any better create order than individuals engaging in voluntary actions.

[thefugitivesaint]

Hooboy!:
Which therefore renders the rest of your post inconsequential. I did read enough of it to figure out that much of your complaints were addressed in my OP however. Perhaps if you were to actually read what you were responding to first and re-post, I will have something to reply to.

Once again, avoid discussion and make an assertion. Your OP did not address my concerns and that is why it was ignored. Your OP barely related to your criticisms of "Civil disobedience" and served no real function in the debate. Your premises (barely defined) were abstractions, concepts of socio-political organization removed from context rather then the "embodied" experience of actual participation in the world as it is actually lived. Some of your assertion are even tautologies. Case in point:

Determining the proper authority primarily hinges on due process and a person's faith in the process.

So, to determine what the "proper authority" is requires an appeal to the very process that is yet to be determined as being valid. Who established "due process" and how does this determine "proper authority"? "Due process" is merely a set of standards for fair treatment of citizens by federal, state and local governments. Appealing to "due process" is an appeal to the power of the State but this assumes the validity of the very thing we are examining. How were those "standards" arrived at?

The "democratic" institutions of America have not always provided "all members..an opportunity to positively provide their consent." This is the point you fail to heed. "Due process" has been prohibited to people, in countless ways, throughout American history. Each time freedom was expanded under law it was done, in great part, by "extra-legal" means, whether violent or not.

Your denunciation of CD assumes that any "extra-legal" action taken implies that the system has completely failed, that CD is an extremist position and that it is motivated by Nihilism. You seem to believe that the "system" is perfectly functional in and of itself if granted ample time and that it is essentially rational in nature. You also seem to assume that "extra-legal" means to address grievances implies that the "rule of law" has failed, that acts of CD stem from impatience, bad faith in the existing system and irrational impulses. You make a great many assumptions, often using ill-defined terms and then proceed to make assertions. You claim that, "Determining if something is irrational should not be too difficult" but never go on to establish this determination. I address your claims and your retort is to question whether or not i even read your post rather then address the points i provided. You do not understand the "point of debate". I have wasted my time.
-theSaint

[Hooboy !!]

If an individual removes his consent, he should be able to take his property, or at least the property he works on(as long as he owns it of course.) and lives in directly(a block of flats or shopping mall you own may be a little different.), and stop paying taxes and remove himself from the control of the state, otherwise no one can be said to have really consented to the gov't at all.
What you are describing is simply impossible. There is no way to do this without also realizing some benefit from the state. The only way to do what you are suggesting is to move somehwere out in the middle of nowhere.

States thrive on chaos, they create chaos, only voluntary and free actions and associations can create order.
A state is formed for the purpose of creating order. I agree that some forms of management seek to create chaos intentionally as a way of minpulating public opinion (management by crisis), but this is not necessarily intrinsic to state management. Also, chaos happens. Sometimes as a result of unforeseen circumstances, sometimes as a consequence of unintended consequences. The presence of chaos is not necessarily evidence that the state is responsible for it.

There is no reason to believe that a group of individuals who are funded by coercion and have a monopoly over legitimatised coercion in the area can any better create order than individuals engaging in voluntary actions.
I agree. Though, I do think that leadership adds value, which does require a certain amount of... how to say nicely? ...motivation to keep individuals pulling in the same direction and cooperating. It has been my personal experience that there is a critical mass that groups reach where leaderless cooperation breaks down. Once you get too many cooks in the kitchen... chaos is inevitable.

[Hooboy !!]

So, to determine what the "proper authority" is requires an appeal to the very process that is yet to be determined as being valid. Who established "due process" and how does this determine "proper authority"?
This was answered in the OP. If you want to discuss the validity of "consent", I suggest starting another thread.

[JamesBannon]

The ironic thing is that our government that Hooboy is suggesting we always obey and never show civil disobedience to, was created through essentially civil disobedience. The irony meter should be exploding. Or maybe Hooboy is okay with violent insurrection, but not non-violent insurrection? I don't know what the hell he is getting at.
This was why I argued that the OP was very similar to Kantian views. Kant would bar civil disobedience even if the government was formed by revolution beforehand.

[Hooboy !!]

This was why I argued that the OP was very similar to Kantian views. Kant would bar civil disobedience even if the government was formed by revolution beforehand.
You know what would be cool? Some links to Kant on the subject. Kant has been a philosopher that I have some interest in, but never really studied him hard.

[JamesBannon]

I don't have links, but I do have copies of most of his major stuff. The one on politics I have is The Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophical Thought "Kant Political Writings" H.S Reiss (ed). Much if his political thought is derived from his major works like "Critique of Pure Reason", "Critique of Practical Reason" and "Critique of Judgement". "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals" and "Metaphysics of Morals" are also important.

[Bonniedundee]

What you are describing is simply impossible. There is no way to do this without also realizing some benefit from the state. The only way to do what you are suggesting is to move somehwere out in the middle of nowhere.Are you refering to public goods theory and the benefiting from the state's defence forces?

Well aside from the fact that I'd argue the state doesn't really protect its citizens when push comes to shove and will concentrate on defending itself rather than yuor house.

The real point is that I didn't ask for this protection, if I decide to secede, with my property, from the state and relinquish all contact from it it is not my fault if I receive some unasked for benefits still. That is like me moving your lawn without your permission and demand ing payment, or my neighbours demanding payment from me because I like the way they have done up their front garden.


A state is formed for the purpose of creating order. I agree that some forms of management seek to create chaos intentionally as a way of minpulating public opinion (management by crisis), but this is not necessarily intrinsic to state management. Also, chaos happens. Sometimes as a result of unforeseen circumstances, sometimes as a consequence of unintended consequences. The presence of chaos is not necessarily evidence that the state is responsible for it.Actually this is historically incorrect(and it conflicts with public goods theory, if want to use that for the above argument!) I recommend you read Franz Oppenheimer's The State, he shows that historically almost all states were originally based on external conquest and the rest were formed from an internal class taking over.

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

I agree. Though, I do think that leadership adds value, which does require a certain amount of... how to say nicely? ...motivation to keep individuals pulling in the same direction and cooperating. It has been my personal experience that there is a critical mass that groups reach where leaderless cooperation breaks down. Once you get too many cooks in the kitchen... chaos is inevitable.
The provision of defence, law enforcement and justice is in reality little different to any other commodity, as we would not expect the state to provide bread, in reality it does not need to provide security(and it does this very poorly anyway!).

[Hooboy !!]

Are you refering to public goods theory and the benefiting from the state's defence forces?
Defense is just one public good. Do you think it is possible to be perfectly self-sufficient?

I suppose if you lived somewhere like Alaska, where natural resources were fairly abundant and you could eke a living off of tha land. But, take a simple case of a subsistence farmer. Where would you get your seed from? How about fuel to run your equipment? How about fertilizers? So, it goes beyond public good too.

Actually this is historically incorrect(and it conflicts with public goods theory, if want to use that for the above argument!) I recommend you read Franz Oppenheimer's The State, he shows that historically almost all states were originally based on external conquest and the rest were formed from an internal class taking over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppenheimer
Mmmm. Yea. I dunno. Even if the United States (for example) were formed in this way (conquest), it is a democracy and can be changed. I guess I just am not buying this.

The provision of defence, law enforcement and justice is in reality little different to any other commodity, as we would not expect the state to provide bread, in reality it does not need to provide security(and it does this very poorly anyway!).
I agree with this. But, you still need some guidance to establish and enforce order. And authority is only as good as its ability to enforce its authority.

[laughing dog]

You know what would be cool? Some links to Kant on the subject. Kant has been a philosopher that I have some interest in, but never really studied him hard.
Here's a site that might be useful http://comp.uark.edu/~rlee/semiau96/kantlink.html (http://comp.uark.edu/%7Erlee/semiau96/kantlink.html)

[chapka]

Justifications for civil disobedience

It seems simple then to me. The only justifications for civil disobedience is a law that violates any of the above principles:

- Is irrational
- Was not established by the proper authority
- Did not serve "good"
- Was not explained or communicated

Hooboy,

Respectfully, I would like to suggest that you do some further research on the concept of civil disobedience, beginning with actually reading Civil Disobedience, the essay in which Thoreau originally laid out the justification for civil disobedience. His actual rationale is not as simplistic as the ones you're suggesting. Once you've read it, I'd be very interested in a thread you might start discussing it; but as it is, you really just seem to be fighting a straw man.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy,

Respectfully, I would like to suggest that you do some further research on the concept of civil disobedience, beginning with actually reading Civil Disobedience, the essay in which Thoreau originally laid out the justification for civil disobedience. His actual rationale is not as simplistic as the ones you're suggesting. Once you've read it, I'd be very interested in a thread you might start discussing it; but as it is, you really just seem to be fighting a straw man.
Thoreau had little use for any government and was an anarchist. In other words he only sparingly and begrudgingly acknowleged the legitimacy of the government. I found this comment interesting...

"for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have"

Which reminded me of the story of King Saul in the Bible

"And Samuel said unto all Israel, Behold, I have hearkened unto your voice in all that ye said unto me, and have made a king over you." ( 1 Samuel 1)

In essence, Thoreau believes that government exists for no real reason other than people feel compelled to have a government of some kind. This comment is interesting too...

"His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought."

Speaking of the lack of quality in the candidates available and none too highly of the voters themselves. This smacks of elitism.

I guess it is easy to justify civil disobedience if you both feel that government is entirely unnecessarry and that, even with a democracy, the polticians available is an exercise in choosing between two evils, made by an apathetic voting community.

Source (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html)

[chapka]

Thoreau had little use for any government and was an anarchist.

Actually, the entire point of Civil Disobedience was to distinguish Thoreau from the anarchist movement. He makes this explicit up front:

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

I guess it is easy to justify civil disobedience if you both feel that government is entirely unnecessarry and that, even with a democracy, the polticians available is an exercise in choosing between two evils, made by an apathetic voting community.

But that's not how Thoreau does justify it:

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

Thoreau is addressing the role of the individual relative to the government. His larger, more theoretical theories of government are not the parts of the essay that are really germane to this issue. Thoreau is saying that humans can't control their governments, but they can control their own actions. You ask how people can judge what is "good." All Thoreau is saying is that whatever the answer might be, it isn't "whatever the government says." You have to make your own choices, just as people have had to throughout history. Whether they're the right choices or the wrong choices has nothing to do with whether we were "just following orders."

[Hooboy !!]

Actually, the entire point of Civil Disobedience was to distinguish Thoreau from the anarchist movement. He makes this explicit up front:
What he is saying is that there is no "better government", which is by default anarchistic.

But that's not how Thoreau does justify it:
Thoreau recognizes the points that I have made on subjectivity of what is "good" and of "intertia" where social change requires a certain amount of time to occur. What he does not do is allow enough time, choosing instead the selfish notion that his own span of lifetime is a satisfactory enough of time to wait. Perhaps.

Thoreau is addressing the role of the individual relative to the government.
Not really. Again, his position is premised on the legitimacy of the government. He is simply making an argument to justify individual actions from a moral perspective. I really have no interest in making any kind of a moral argument. I am more interested in the smoothing out of the machine as he would put it. Friction happens. He concludes that friction may either smooth things out, or break it down. I agree with this, but it needs to run its course without having someone deliberately mucking up the works.

Thoreau is saying that humans can't control their governments, but they can control their own actions. You ask how people can judge what is "good." All Thoreau is saying is that whatever the answer might be, it isn't "whatever the government says." You have to make your own choices, just as people have had to throughout history. Whether they're the right choices or the wrong choices has nothing to do with whether we were "just following orders."
Control is an illusion. A democratic government is the aggregate of the governed wants and desires, either by activism or by passivism. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Right, wrong, or indifferent. It is what it is and it should be respected, irrespective of what we personally think. If you don't like it... move somewhere else. That or resign yourself to "friction" and let it do its work.

[Autonemesis]

So then, what would be justifications for civil disobedience?

To raise awareness in the public that an unjust law exists.

To make enforcement of that law more expensive, politically or monetarily or both, perhaps more expensive than not enforcing it.

To retain one's sense of personal integrity, if obeying the law goes against one's conscience.

To show solidarity with those who have already been prosecuted and imprisoned under an unjust law.

- A law is irrational? Who says so? If the majority of people do not agree with you, it does not matter how right you think you are or how well you are able to present your argument.

Now you're switching the goalposts. You asked what was the justification for civil disobedience, but you answer with an objection that assumes the question was can it succeed.

- You do not accept the legitimacy of the current government? Why not? It has been in existence for over 200 years. Long enough to earn its credentials.

Why must you reject the legitimacy of the entire government when rejecting just the law in question will suffice?

- You think a law is immoral? Where do you receive your moral authority from?

The same place you get yours from.

- Never heard of the law or do not understand the law? This could be a problem I suppose. Some laws are written ambiguously on purpose to allow it the opportunity to evolve and adapt over time with the society.

And some were written ambiguously to give the authorities a pretext for detaining otherwise innocent people.

But, this is what the purpose of the courts is, to interpret the law.

Civil disobedience is one way of getting a case before the courts which can overturn an unjust law.

[chapka]

What he is saying is that there is no "better government", which is by default anarchistic.

I think the fact that he explicitly says that for the moment he is not advocating the abolition of government but its improvement is pretty definitive on this point.

Thoreau recognizes the points that I have made on subjectivity of what is "good" and of "intertia" where social change requires a certain amount of time to occur. What he does not do is allow enough time, choosing instead the selfish notion that his own span of lifetime is a satisfactory enough of time to wait. Perhaps.

I think you're badly misreading the essay, and again here:

He is simply making an argument to justify individual actions from a moral perspective. I really have no interest in making any kind of a moral argument. I am more interested in the smoothing out of the machine as he would put it.

Thoreau is not talking about civil disobedience as a tool of political theory. He's talking about it as an individual philosophy. Civil disobedience is an individual action, and Thoreau's point is that individuals' actions can't be justified on collective grounds. People have to take responsibility for their actions, no matter what their governments do. Just following orders isn't enough.

Friction happens. He concludes that friction may either smooth things out, or break it down. I agree with this, but it needs to run its course without having someone deliberately mucking up the works.

Why? You make what to me is a bizarre logical leap here. First you say:

Control is an illusion. A democratic government is the aggregate of the governed wants and desires, either by activism or by passivism. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Right, wrong, or indifferent. It is what it is

and then you say:

and it should be respected, irrespective of what we personally think. If you don't like it... move somewhere else. That or resign yourself to "friction" and let it do its work.

I don't see how the second part of this quotation follows in any way, shape or form from the first part, unless you are making an individual moral judgment of the sort you've just disclaimed. Like you said, government is what it is; it doesn't "need" people to act in any particular way.

The weather is what it is, too. But if it rains, would you say something similar to someone who got out an umbrella? "Stay indoors, or get wet!" Why are those the only choices?

[Hooboy !!]

Civil disobedience is one way of getting a case before the courts which can overturn an unjust law.
So, in other words... you are admitting that civil disobedience is not necessarry.

[laughing dog]

So, in other words... you are admitting that civil disobedience is not necessarry. No. By bringing attention to an unjust law before the court, the court system can work. Even if the protester is found guility before the law, the public attention may be sufficient to get the public and legislature to act.

[Hooboy !!]

I think the fact that he explicitly says that for the moment he is not advocating the abolition of government but its improvement is pretty definitive on this point.
Yet, he advocates civil disobedience. What he is saying is that the government is what it is, and that no matter what... it is not perfect enough to leave it be. He is challenging someone to come forward and put forth another system that is superior, knowing full well that there will be no takers.

I think you're badly misreading the essay, and again here:
I dont think so...

Thoreau is not talking about civil disobedience as a tool of political theory. He's talking about it as an individual philosophy. Civil disobedience is an individual action, and Thoreau's point is that individuals' actions can't be justified on collective grounds. People have to take responsibility for their actions, no matter what their governments do. Just following orders isn't enough.
I got it that.

Why? You make what to me is a bizarre logical leap here. First you say:

and then you say:

I don't see how the second part of this quotation follows in any way, shape or form from the first part, unless you are making an individual moral judgment of the sort you've just disclaimed. Like you said, government is what it is; it doesn't "need" people to act in any particular way.
OK. Control is an illusion, in that it is not possible to deliberately manage and manipulate the moral fabric of society. It varies. It changes. It is fluid. For example... One day it is perfectly acceptable, even moral, to use petroleum based products, because whales are growing extinct and we can no longer justify slaugtering them for them oil. The next, petroleum based products are causing global warming and placing thousands of species at risk of extinction.

The government is not capable of predicting the future well enough to prevent ill, or seek out the benefits from, future events. On NPR today was a discussion on "black swans" improbable events and how people use history to alter perceptions such that, it seems possible to have predicted them. The notion is absurd. This is the beauty of democracy. It is designed to adapt to changing human society. But, the nature of that society? Impossible to predict or control. It is what it is.

Attempting to exert control, or presuming to be able to predict the occurrence of a "black swan" creates the risk of disrupting the process. It is interesting that Thoreau includes the Abolitionists in his essay, which is a good example of social engineering gone awry. Is it ironic that now-a-days people recognize the negative social consequences of alcohol abuse and are willing to allow restrictions on the use of alcohol? I do not think so. It was friction at work.

In my view, it is best to leave things alone and let things take their natural course. Any attempt to force the issue is likely to do more harm than good.

The weather is what it is, too. But if it rains, would you say something similar to someone who got out an umbrella? "Stay indoors, or get wet!" Why are those the only choices?
But, what if the act of going outside increased the likelihood it would rain? The problem as I see it with civil disobedience is that it disrupts the process and prevents it from functioning well. Someone would have to show me how civil disobedience improves the process I suppose.

[Hooboy !!]

No. By bringing attention to an unjust law before the court, the court system can work.
And civil disobedience is the only way to bring attention to an unjust law?

[laughing dog]

And civil disobedience is the only way to bring attention to an unjust law? It depends on the situation. How long should the blacks in Montgomery had to have waited before they could sit anywhere on the bus? Rosa Parks and the boycott raised enough attention to hasten the end. Do you really think Great Britain would have let home rule for India sooner without Ghandhi's efforts - he helped shame themselves into doing the right thing.

[Pavlov's Dog]

No. By bringing attention to an unjust law before the court, the court system can work. Even if the protester is found guility before the law, the public attention may be sufficient to get the public and legislature to act.

Exactly. In fact, this is one circumstance (attempting to change the law) where a lawyer can ethically bring a case that he knows is frivolous.

[Autonemesis]

And civil disobedience is the only way to bring attention to an unjust law?

Oh please. If there are, just to name a number, three ways of getting a court to review a law, it doesn't mean that two of them are unnecessary. It just means there are three ways!

[Bonniedundee]

Defense is just one public good. These don't exist, in fact your argument about the origin of states conflicts with public goods theory.

Do you think it is possible to be perfectly self-sufficient?How do you mean?

I suppose if you lived somewhere like Alaska, where natural resources were fairly abundant and you could eke a living off of tha land. But, take a simple case of a subsistence farmer. Where would you get your seed from? How about fuel to run your equipment? How about fertilizers? So, it goes beyond public good too.
I don't understand what you mean.

Mmmm. Yea. I dunno. Even if the United States (for example) were formed in this way (conquest), it is a democracy and can be changed. I guess I just am not buying this.It is not a democracy. You vote for a few nominal representatives every few years who are very similar and bow far more to corporate influence than the public.

[Bonniedundee]

Actually, the entire point of Civil Disobedience was to distinguish Thoreau from the anarchist movement. He makes this explicit up front:This is incorrect, Thoreau published this in America in 1849. There simply wasn't an anarchist movement at this time and there were very few people who called themselves such, I can think of only one American and only a few europeans that had published anything that Thoreau could of read, and that would very unlikely.

The classical anarchist movement didn't take off until the 1860s.

Thoreau simply says that the best gov't is no gov't and that when people are ready that is what they will have.

He is simply playing on the words of either the proto-anarchist Tom Paine or the libertarian agrarian and somewhat anarchistic Thomas Jefferson, no one is sure exactly who said those words first.

[Hooboy !!]

These don't exist, in fact your argument about the origin of states conflicts with public goods theory.
You'll have to explain this to me.

[Bonniedundee]

You'll have to explain this to me.If democracy evolved from monarchy some would have to fight for this, but all would benefit, so you'd have what public goods theory calls the free rider problem.

Or a hobbesean anarchy some would have to build a state, most would benefit(if states are indeed like the Hobbesean idea.)and you'd have the same problem.

[chapka]

Yet, he advocates civil disobedience. What he is saying is that the government is what it is, and that no matter what... it is not perfect enough to leave it be.

I'm not aware of any modern political theory that holds that whatever government exists now is perfect.


OK. Control is an illusion, in that it is not possible to deliberately manage and manipulate the moral fabric of society. It varies. It changes. It is fluid. For example... One day it is perfectly acceptable, even moral, to use petroleum based products, because whales are growing extinct and we can no longer justify slaugtering them for them oil. The next, petroleum based products are causing global warming and placing thousands of species at risk of extinction.

The government is not capable of predicting the future well enough to prevent ill, or seek out the benefits from, future events. On NPR today was a discussion on "black swans" improbable events and how people use history to alter perceptions such that, it seems possible to have predicted them. The notion is absurd. This is the beauty of democracy. It is designed to adapt to changing human society. But, the nature of that society? Impossible to predict or control. It is what it is.

Attempting to exert control, or presuming to be able to predict the occurrence of a "black swan" creates the risk of disrupting the process.

Again: Thoreau is not talking about individuals attempting social engineering; he's talking about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions. You say you understand this, but I'm not sure you really appreciate it. You've just explained that you can't trust the system to tell you to do the right thing. I don't see how that's an argument that you should trust the system and do whatever it tells you to do.

It is interesting that Thoreau includes the Abolitionists in his essay, which is a good example of social engineering gone awry. Is it ironic that now-a-days people recognize the negative social consequences of alcohol abuse and are willing to allow restrictions on the use of alcohol? I do not think so. It was friction at work.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think you may be confusing abolitionists, who led the fight against slavery, with prohibitionists, who led the fight to outlaw alcohol consumption.

Abolitionists, of course, are the key to Thoreau's philosophy. Most people in Thoreau's time and place thought slavery was morally wrong. They didn't own slaves themselves. However, Thoreau's point was that their government was still passing fugitive slave laws that helped keep people in the South enslaved. The fact that they didn't own slaves themselves didn't make these people any less culpable if their actions kept blacks in the South enslaved, even if they were just going along with the law of the land.

In my view, it is best to leave things alone and let things take their natural course. Any attempt to force the issue is likely to do more harm than good.

Evidence?

But, what if the act of going outside increased the likelihood it would rain? The problem as I see it with civil disobedience is that it disrupts the process and prevents it from functioning well. Someone would have to show me how civil disobedience improves the process I suppose.

Why should I, as an individual, give a damn whether the process is "disrupted" by my not committing an immoral act? This is the key point you have not addressed: moral decisions have to be made on an individual basis, not a collective basis, and following orders is not an excuse for immoral behavior. Even if these orders come from the government.

I think miscegenation laws are a good example. When miscegenation was illegal, if you were attracted to someone of a "forbidden" race, what would you do, and why?

[chapka]

And civil disobedience is the only way to bring attention to an unjust law?

That's not what was said. It's the only way to get a court to review such a law.

In order for a court to review a criminal law, for example, there has to be a court case in the first place, which means someone has to have broken the law and been arrested for it.

[chapka]

This is incorrect, Thoreau published this in America in 1849. There simply wasn't an anarchist movement at this time and there were very few people who called themselves such, I can think of only one American and only a few europeans that had published anything that Thoreau could of read, and that would very unlikely.

Unlikely or not, the essay is pretty clear; Thoreau clearly sets up, then distances himself from, a utopian anarchist position. Anarchism had only been coined as a word lately in Europe, but at the same time there were anarchiso-socialist communes in operation in the United States, and the Come-Outer movement spreading anarchism in the churches. The anti-government movements that germinated into the deeply related anarchist and socialist movements later in the century were already well underway in 1849.

I'm also not sure why you think it's so unlikely that Thoreau, who was widely read in political philosophy and fluent in French, would have run across Proudhon sometime in the ten years before writing "Civil Disobedience."

[Hooboy !!]

I'm not aware of any modern political theory that holds that whatever government exists now is perfect... I don't see how that's an argument that you should trust the system and do whatever it tells you to do.
I am not suggesting that it is perfect or that we should just do whatever it is we are told. I am not opposed to individual acts of civil disobedience. My point is that every system has its issues, but when the system has built into it the ability to change and adapt, then refusing to allow the system to work is a vote of no confidence in the system and actually interferes with the system's ability to function as it was designed.

I think you may be confusing abolitionists, who led the fight against slavery, with prohibitionists
Yes.

lol

Brain fart. My bad. My point was that deliberately trying to force a society into a moral standard (social engineering) is doomed to fail. The issue of slavery might still be a good example though, because too rapid social change led to a bloody civil war.

Is it possible that slavery could have been abolished without resulting in a civil war?

Why should I, as an individual, give a damn whether the process is "disrupted" by my not committing an immoral act?
Either a system is worth preserving or it is not. Individual acts of civil disobedience may not be a big problem, but when it is organized into a mass movement... well, I have explained this in part 1.

I think miscegenation laws are a good example. When miscegenation was illegal, if you were attracted to someone of a "forbidden" race, what would you do, and why?
This is a good example of social change occurring within the system. Interracial marriages are common place now and we did not have a civil war to allow it, we did not see a massive political movement to alter people's perceptions.

[Hooboy !!]

If democracy evolved from monarchy some would have to fight for this, but all would benefit, so you'd have what public goods theory calls the free rider problem.

Or a hobbesean anarchy some would have to build a state, most would benefit(if states are indeed like the Hobbesean idea.)and you'd have the same problem.
I have to apologize, but I am still lost.

[chapka]

Either a system is worth preserving or it is not. Individual acts of civil disobedience may not be a big problem, but when it is organized into a mass movement... well, I have explained this in part 1.

To Thoreau, every act of civil disobedience is an individual act. I'm not sure I see the distinction. If it's morally acceptable for each individual to make a certain moral choice, how does it become wrong when many people make that choice?

This is a good example of social change occurring within the system. Interracial marriages are common place now and we did not have a civil war to allow it, we did not see a massive political movement to alter people's perceptions.

Yes, actually, we did; it was called the Civil Rights movement. The push to end miscegenation laws specifically was jump-started by a court case which resulted from someone disobeying the law. And many, many interracial couples were beaten or killed for disobeying those laws before we got to where we are today; not to mention many other forms of protest and propoganda on the part of the pro-miscegenation movement--think of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. These laws didn't change by themselves.

[Hooboy !!]

To Thoreau, every act of civil disobedience is an individual act. I'm not sure I see the distinction. If it's morally acceptable for each individual to make a certain moral choice, how does it become wrong when many people make that choice?
When it becomes a threat.

Yes, actually, we did; it was called the Civil Rights movement.
Like I have said before... attitudes towards blacks began changing long before Civil Rights movement. Interesting that you brought up a movie. The media is actually one of the most powerful catalysts for change. Think Star Trek and Uhura.

[chapka]

When it becomes a threat.

Who is threatened by one person's moral choice? I don't know what you mean. What individual was harmed by Rosa Parks' moral choice to refuse to obey a bad law, and why should that have stopped her? How did this situation change when many people decided to take action?

[ravenscape]

Please remember, PE&ST is an upper forum, and try to avoid comments that are not conducive to furthering the discussion.

Comments on media influence on civil rights split to here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=208049) in the ~E~ forum.

Raven
PE&ST Moderation Team

[Jimmy Higgins]

My point was that deliberately trying to force a society into a moral standard (social engineering) is doomed to fail. The issue of slavery might still be a good example though, because too rapid social change led to a bloody civil war.Quoi? Um, the slavery issue was an issue since the writing of the Constitution. So are you saying 1787 to 1861 is too quick? Granted, slavery became a bigger issue again, after a short lull, when the cotton gin was invented.

Secondly, the slavery issue wasn't decided before the Civil War. Nor did Lincoln want to abolish slavery in the South. Nor was Lincoln even in the White House before states started leaving over his election. So blaming quick social reconstruction for the Civil War isn't well reasoned seeing that both sides were compromising till blood came out of their skin to keep both sides happy and nothing was decided on the slavery issue prior to the southern states seceding from the union.

Is it possible that slavery could have been abolished without resulting in a civil war?We'll never know.

Regarding other social constructs, African Americans didn't get civil rights until using Civil Disobedience against Jim Crow laws.

Either a system is worth preserving or it is not. Individual acts of civil disobedience may not be a big problem, but when it is organized into a mass movement... well, I have explained this in part 1.Then why did it work for the Civil Rights movement?

This is a good example of social change occurring within the system. Interracial marriages are common place now and we did not have a civil war to allow it, we did not see a massive political movement to alter people's perceptions.Funny, that it took civil disobedience to get the Loving v Virginia case to the US Supreme Court to begin with. It was against the law in Virginia for an inter-racial couple to marry in another state and then come back to Virginia and live together. That couple broke the law and then it got reversed. It would seem that civil disobedience does work.

[Hooboy !!]

Quoi? Um, the slavery issue was an issue since the writing of the Constitution. So are you saying 1787 to 1861 is too quick? Granted, slavery became a bigger issue again, after a short lull, when the cotton gin was invented.

Secondly, the slavery issue wasn't decided before the Civil War. Nor did Lincoln want to abolish slavery in the South. Nor was Lincoln even in the White House before states started leaving over his election. So blaming quick social reconstruction for the Civil War isn't well reasoned seeing that both sides were compromising till blood came out of their skin to keep both sides happy and nothing was decided on the slavery issue prior to the southern states seceding from the union.
The slavery issue was not just an American issue. As far as what is and what is not "quick" goes... I think a lot of a society's willingness to change is a function of education. It is difficult to use history as a way of predicting the rate of social change. A more secular, better educated society is more inclined to accept reasoned arguments and social change.

Then why did it work for the Civil Rights movement?
There is no question that civil disobedience draws attention. I am not convinced that civil disobedience is necessary to stimulate discussion and debate however, nor is it necessary to instigate court actions (civil cases as opposed to legal).

[laughing dog]

There is no question that civil disobedience draws attention. I am not convinced that civil disobedience is necessary to stimulate discussion and debate however, nor is it necessary to instigate court actions (civil cases as opposed to legal).
Still waiting for a rational/evidence that home rule for India or civil rights would have occurred faster (or at the same pace) without civil disobedience.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I am not convinced that civil disobedience is necessary to stimulate discussion and debate however, nor is it necessary to instigate court actions (civil cases as opposed to legal).

Yes it is necessary to instigate court actions. And what does civil as opposed to legal mean?

[Hooboy !!]

Yes it is necessary to instigate court actions. And what does civil as opposed to legal mean?
You can file a civil case as opposed to breaking a law.

[laughing dog]

You can file a civil case as opposed to breaking a law. What type of civil case would Ghandi - a British trained lawyer- filed to eliminate British rule of India?

[Jimmy Higgins]

The slavery issue was not just an American issue. As far as what is and what is not "quick" goes... I think a lot of a society's willingness to change is a function of education. It is difficult to use history as a way of predicting the rate of social change. A more secular, better educated society is more inclined to accept reasoned arguments and social change.I feel you entirely sidestepped my point stating your idea was unreasoned that the Civil War was the result of quick social change regarding slavery.

There is no question that civil disobedience draws attention. I am not convinced that civil disobedience is necessary to stimulate discussion and debate however, nor is it necessary to instigate court actions (civil cases as opposed to legal).Well, it worked for Nelson Mandella in South Africa, Martin Luther King Jr. in the US, Ghandi in India... three huge examples in three substantial nations.

[chapka]

You can file a civil case as opposed to breaking a law.

If the law in question is a penal law, then at least in the United States, you pretty much have to break it to challenge it.

[Hooboy !!]

I feel you entirely sidestepped my point stating your idea was unreasoned that the Civil War was the result of quick social change regarding slavery.
Social change takes time. What is "quick" is both subjective to the individual and relative to other types change. The drive to achieve equal rights for all individuals began hundreds of years ago. Not in the 60's. It was a global movement and not limited to the US. It was hindered not only by custom and the status quo, but also by religious ideology, nationalism, psuedo-science (in the case of eugenics), etc... It is a gross over simplification of the issue to assert that acts of civil disobedience during the 60's was the primary catalyst for change.

[Hooboy !!]

If the law in question is a penal law, then at least in the United States, you pretty much have to break it to challenge it.
Any law can be tested for constitutionality in the courts without breaking the law.

[RED DAVE]

Social change takes time. What is "quick" is both subjective to the individual and relative to other types change. The drive to achieve equal rights for all individuals began hundreds of years ago. Not in the 60's. It was a global movement and not limited to the US. It was hindered not only by custom and the status quo, but also by religious ideology, nationalism, psuedo-science (in the case of eugenics), etc... It is a gross over simplification of the issue to assert that acts of civil disobedience during the 60's was the primary catalyst for change.It is an exaggeration. However, the acts of civil disobedience of the 50s and 60s, boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides, illegal protest marches, etc., were critical.

Civil disobedience during the Vietnam War was also critical in keeping the issue of the war before the public.

RED DAVE

[chapka]

Any law can be tested for constitutionality in the courts without breaking the law.

No, it really can't. It's an issue of Constitutional standing under the Cases and Controversies clause.

If you disagree, how do you think you would go about challenging such a law? What would your cause of action be? Where would you file? Who would the defendant be, and what would be your bases for jurisdiction and venue?

[Hooboy !!]

It is an exaggeration.
To put it lightly.

However, the acts of civil disobedience of the 50s and 60s, boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides, illegal protest marches, etc., were critical.
Critical, how so? The willingness and ability to perform acts of civil disobedience, without fear of being violently put down, was a function of gradual social change preceeding the acts of civil disobedience. Had Rosa Parks tried what she did, say 20 years eariler, they would have found her corpse hanging from a tree and no more would have been said about it. I think there is a causal relationship here, but not in the way you think.

Civil disobedience during the Vietnam War was also critical in keeping the issue of the war before the public.
I do not think so. Again, the media had more to do with this anything else. I do not remember the protests or the riots. I remember the body counts on the Evening News. The media is an example of how technology is able to alter the concept of "quick". In an age of the Internet, cellular phones, and instant global communication, our concept of "quick" is profoundly different than what it was even 150 years ago and even more profound that it was 550 years ago.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Social change takes time. What is "quick" is both subjective to the individual and relative to other types change. The drive to achieve equal rights for all individuals began hundreds of years ago. Not in the 60's. It was a global movement and not limited to the US. It was hindered not only by custom and the status quo, but also by religious ideology, nationalism, psuedo-science (in the case of eugenics), etc... It is a gross over simplification of the issue to assert that acts of civil disobedience during the 60's was the primary catalyst for change.What Red Dave said above!

Also, you forgot to refute the other two examples where civil disobedience had huge rewards in India and South Africa!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any law can be tested for constitutionality in the courts without breaking the law.Loving v Virginia (Inter-racial marriage case) had the law broken to get to the US Supreme Court. It was only there where the law was deemed unconstitutional. Virginia's Courts quite liked the law saying it punished both races equally. *yak*

[Hooboy !!]

No, it really can't. It's an issue of Constitutional standing under the Cases and Controversies clause.

Judicial review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review#Judicial_review_in_the_United_States)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Critical, how so? The willingness and ability to perform acts of civil disobedience, without fear of being violently put down, was a function of gradual social change preceeding the acts of civil disobedience. Had Rosa Parks tried what she did, say 20 years eariler, they would have found her corpse hanging from a tree and no more would have been said about it. I think there is a causal relationship here, but not in the way you think.That's odd. Medger Evers, Martin Luther King, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney were all killed after Rosa Park's civil disobedience. I think your logic isn't fully reasoned there.

[laughing dog]

Judicial review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review#Judicial_review_in_the_United_States) From your citation;
In the federal system, courts may only decide actual cases or controversies; it is not possible to request the federal courts to review a law without at least one party having legal standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_standing) to engage in a lawsuit.
For a criminal law, how does one party establish legal standing? By becoming a defendant.

[Pavlov's Dog]

You can file a civil case as opposed to breaking a law.

No you can't.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No you can't.
What about the partial birth abortion law? I don't think anyone broke the law and it got to the US Supreme Court. But that may be a rare instance.

[RED DAVE]

Okay, I guess we're going to get into it.

From RED DAVE:
However, the acts of civil disobedience of the 50s and 60s, boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides, illegal protest marches, etc., were critical.From Hooboy !!:
Critical, how so?The changes in the climate of civil rights in the United States, including changes in the law, would not have happened without acts of civil disobedience.

From Hooboy !!:
The willingness and ability to perform acts of civil disobedience, without fear of being violently put down, was a function of gradual social change preceeding the acts of civil disobedience.First of all there was the constant fear of violence. Having been a very minor participant in the civil rights movement, let me tell you that the fear of violence, even in demonstrations in New York was very real and not fueled by paranoia. The freedom rides, for instance, which involved the burning of an interstate bus, took place in 1961. People have already mentioned the numerous murders that took place.

Hooboy !!, frankly, you don't know what you are talking about.

From Hooboy !!:
Had Rosa Parks tried what she did, say 20 years eariler, they would have found her corpse hanging from a tree and no more would have been said about it. I think there is a causal relationship here, but not in the way you think.That's true. And the end of lynching involved a massive political campaign over decades, including mass marches, which you're so afraid of.

Another point that hasn't been raised: one of the crucial background movements for the sit-ins was the factory sit-ins in the late 1930s. The civil rights movement was intimately linked to the labor movement and the Left, and there were people who participated in the civil rights movement who had participated in the factory sit-ins. The civil rights movement was also intimately linked the the American pacifist movement with its history of civil disobedience.

From RED DAVE:
Civil disobedience during the Vietnam War was also critical in keeping the issue of the war before the public.From Hooboy !!:
I do not think so.I suggest that you think again.

From Hooboy !!:
Again, the media had more to do with this anything else. I do not remember the protests or the riots.I remember them very well because I was involved in them. And most of the rioting was on the part of the police and National Guard. We were very conscious of the media and cosntantly trying to get its attention. As time went by, we were more and more successful.

From Hooboy !!:
I remember the body counts on the Evening News.And notice that, in the absence of massive demonstrations and civil disobedience, that information is not spread out. I am amazed and horrified at how the war is downgraded in the media. I don't post the daily body counts here for nothing.

From Hooboy !!:
The media is an example of how technology is able to alter the concept of "quick". In an age of the Internet, cellular phones, and instant global communication, our concept of "quick" is profoundly different than what it was even 150 years ago and even more profound that it was 550 years ago.True. But should this country have had to wait 80 years for the end of slavery?

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

True. But should this country have had to wait 80 years for the end of slavery?
People waited longer than that even.

First of all there was the constant fear of violence. Having been a very minor participant in the civil rights movement, let me tell you that the fear of violence, even in demonstrations in New York was very real and not fueled by paranoia. The freedom rides, for instance, which involved the burning of an interstate bus, took place in 1961. People have already mentioned the numerous murders that took place.

Hooboy !!, frankly, you don't know what you are talking about.
No amount of legislation is going to alter people's bigotry. Violence directed at other people because of their ethnicity or religion has nothing to do with protection under the law. All the law does is provide a deterrent and a means of reparations.

The fact of the matter is, the civil rights movement would not have been successful without a chain of events leading up to it over a period of hundreds of years. No amount of acts of civil disobedience would have been enough to affect social change were not the seeds for change already been sown.

ETA: Not without violent insurrection anyway.

Social change was occurring without the benefit of civil disobedience.

most of the rioting was on the part of the police and National Guard.
Its like that immigration rally the other day. How do you expect the authorities to respond when they are attacked? Just because you are committed to peaceful demonstration does not mean that everyone is or will remain so.

If you are going to behave antagonistically towards the state, expect the state to reciprocate. It is circular logic:

The state is evil. Let's violate the rules of governance to protest the evil state. The state seeks to enforce rule of law. The state is evil.

You are ignoring the points I made in the OP.

[Hooboy !!]

From your citation;

For a criminal law, how does one party establish legal standing? By becoming a defendant.

Implied cause of action

[chapka]

Implied cause of action

Posting Wikipedia pages is not an adequate response to a question.

An implied cause of action has nothing to do with standing. Ordinary standing principles still apply, as the article itself makes clear.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No amount of legislation is going to alter people's bigotry. Violence directed at other people because of their ethnicity or religion has nothing to do with protection under the law. All the law does is provide a deterrent and a means of reparations.

The fact of the matter is, the civil rights movement would not have been successful without a chain of events leading up to it over a period of hundreds of years. No amount of acts of civil disobedience would have been enough to affect social change were not the seeds for change already been sown.

ETA: Not without violent insurrection anyway.

Social change was occurring without the benefit of civil disobedience.Algeria, India, US, South Africa didn't use civil disobedience in a successful manner? Didn't the French leave, the English leave, America ridded itself of Jim Crow laws, apartheid end?

[Hooboy !!]

Posting Wikipedia pages is not an adequate response to a question.

"No state or federal law is allowed to violate the U.S. Constitution."

"In the federal system, courts may only decide actual cases or controversies; it is not possible to request the federal courts to review a law without at least one party having legal standing to engage in a lawsuit."

"Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law."

Challenging the constitutionality of a law does not require the law to be broken.

[Pavlov's Dog]

"Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law."


Umm, do you even know what this means? That is not what implied cause of action does or means. It does not give you standing if there is no case or controversy. You still need all the elements of standing.

Challenging the constitutionality of a law does not require the law to be broken.

In most cases they do. You cannot just say, "hey that law is unconstitutional, so I am going to sue." It does not work that way.

[chapka]

"No state or federal law is allowed to violate the U.S. Constitution."

"In the federal system, courts may only decide actual cases or controversies; it is not possible to request the federal courts to review a law without at least one party having legal standing to engage in a lawsuit."

"Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law."

Challenging the constitutionality of a law does not require the law to be broken.

The page simply does not say what you think it says. An implied remedy still requires standing. Read the cases.

[Jimmy Higgins]

The page simply does not say what you think it says. An implied remedy still requires standing. Read the cases.That's how the Pledge of Allegience (sp) case got resolved by the court. It was thrown out because the father had no standing.

[laughing dog]

Implied cause of action As with the other citation, it contradicts your claim. If you read this article, the plaintiff still requires standing. Not only can I see this, but 2 attorneys can see the same thing. One cannot simply walk into court and sucessively be heard on the constitutionality of a law or practice: one has to be able to show one is harmed. With criminal laws, that requires one to be a defendent in a criminal action.

[Hooboy !!]

Umm, do you even know what this means? That is not what implied cause of action does or means. It does not give you standing if there is no case or controversy. You still need all the elements of standing.
That's what the purpose of implied is. Not everyone can, but those affected can.

You cannot just say, "hey that law is unconstitutional, so I am going to sue." It does not work that way.
Yes it does, at the state level. Several states have procedures for judicial review of laws for constitutionality as part of the legislative process. Procedurally, I doubt just anyone can, but... regardless.

[Autonemesis]

But anyone can break a law, and thereby become a defendant, and thereby gain standing to challenge the law. So screw all that other paperwork, the fastest way is via civil disobedience. Forcing the issue works best.

[Pavlov's Dog]

That's what the purpose of implied is. Not everyone can, but those affected can.
What are you talking about? An implied cause of action is irrelevant to what we are discussing. It does not grant you standing.

Yes it does, at the state level. Several states have procedures for judicial review of laws for constitutionality as part of the legislative process.

Maybe some states do, but it doesn't help you with federal laws or in states that do not have this option available.

Procedurally, I doubt just anyone can, but... regardless.

No, you cannot just sue if you feel a law is unconstitutional. That is why civil disobedience is the only way to get some laws reviewed.

[Hooboy !!]

<snip>
Look. Judicial review allowed the courts to strike down any law or any act if it is ruled unconstitutional. The only thing you are arguing at this point is procedures for how a case can be heard. There are issues of jurisdiction and there are issues of standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_standing) in regards federal law. Standing can be achieved directly or through implied.

"the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, for example, a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will be) harmed by the law."

The operative phrase is "or will be".

The assertion that a law must be broken is simply false.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Look. Judicial review allowed the courts to strike down any law or any act if it is ruled unconstitutional. The only thing you are arguing at this point is procedures for how a case can be heard. There are issues of jurisdiction and there are issues of standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_standing) in regards federal law. Standing can be achieved directly or through implied.

And in some cases standing can only be achieved through breaking the law.

The operative phrase is "or will be".

Stop getting your information from wikipedia for two reasons: 1) Some of it is sketchy and presented in a confusing manner, and 2) even if it is legit and presented in a straightforward manner, you don't really understand what you are reading.

It is not as simple as "or will be." Try reading some of the cases in your wikipedia articles.

The assertion that a law must be broken is simply false.

You are simply wrong.

[Hooboy !!]

And in some cases standing can only be achieved through breaking the law.
Yea. You will have to provide evidence of this.

It is not as simple as "or will be." Try reading some of the cases in your wikipedia articles.
"Will be" can be a little tricky.

[Hooboy !!]

Found a pretty good article that closely parallels this thread. Pretty cool.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/civ-dis.htm

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
But should this country have had to wait 80 years for the end of slavery?From Hooboy !!:
People waited longer than that even.And that was a stain on human history.

From RED DAVE:
First of all there was the constant fear of violence. Having been a very minor participant in the civil rights movement, let me tell you that the fear of violence, even in demonstrations in New York was very real and not fueled by paranoia. The freedom rides, for instance, which involved the burning of an interstate bus, took place in 1961. People have already mentioned the numerous murders that took place.

Hooboy !!, frankly, you don't know what you are talking about.

From Hooboy !!:
No amount of legislation is going to alter people's bigotry.Perhaps not, but what it did was to eliminate the common practice of public bigotry in employment, housing and public accomonation and, to a large extent, in speech.

From Hooboy !!:
Violence directed at other people because of their ethnicity or religion has nothing to do with protection under the law.The fact that people are protected against, say, the KKK has everything to do with the law. You’re just bathering.

From Hooboy !!:
All the law does is provide a deterrent and a means of reparations.And actual physical protection.

From Hooboy !!:
The fact of the matter is, the civil rights movement would not have been successful without a chain of events leading up to it over a period of hundreds of years. No amount of acts of civil disobedience would have been enough to affect social change were not the seeds for change already been sown.

ETA: Not without violent insurrection anyway.Of course, but what’s your point? The history of civil rights in this country, from the first abolitionists and abortive revolts down to the civil rights movement is well known.

From Hooboy !!:
Social change was occurring without the benefit of civil disobedience.Social change was occurring due to a large number of factors, including civil disobedience. You’re so anxious to downplay civil disobedience that you distort history.

From RED DAVE:
most of the rioting was on the part of the police and National Guard.From Hooboy !!:
Its like that immigration rally the other day. How do you expect the authorities to respond when they are attacked? Just because you are committed to peaceful demonstration does not mean that everyone is or will remain so.I’m not going to get into the immigration rally. Start a thread if you think it was the peoples’ fault. How do I expect the authorities to respond? Exactly the way they do: with hatred and violence.

From Hooboy !!:
If you are going to behave antagonistically towards the state, expect the state to reciprocate. It is circular logic:
The state is evil. Let's violate the rules of governance to protest the evil state. The state seeks to enforce rule of law. The state is evil.If the rule of law is “evil,” what else is one supposed to do but “behave antagonistically”?

From Hooboy !!:
You are ignoring the points I made in the OP.You made points in the OP?

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

And actual physical protection.
This is a misconception. The law does not prevent laws from being broken. It provides only a deterrent and reparations.

You’re so anxious to downplay civil disobe