Political morality, civil disobedience (part 4)

[Hooboy !!]

At the root of the justifications for civil disobedience is the belief that a law is immoral and therefore, people are morally compelled to disobey it. Proponents of civil disobedience further assert that the purpose of rule of law is to be “moral”. The problem I have with this assertion is that implies the existence of an objective or universal morality.

The concept of “political morality” has been raised as an argument for a society where morality is codified in law, citing the writings of Maximilien Robespierre. The intent was to show how rule of law is a moral system, but that would be an incorrect interpretation. But, what was Robespierre talking about when he discusses “political morality”? Is it a moral system of conduct? No.

“Since the soul of the Republic is virtue, equality, and since your goal is to found, to consolidate the Republic, it follows that the first rule of your political conduct ought to be to relate all your efforts to maintaining equality and developing virtue; because the first care of the legislator ought to be to fortify the principle of the government. Thus everything that tends to excite love of country, to purify morals, to elevate souls, to direct the passions of the human heart toward the public interest ought to be adopted or established by you.”

What Robespierre is referring to is “political conduct” or in other words, what the goals of governance are and since he is discussing a democracy or republic, this also means the political conduct of the governed.

In a nutshell, what Robespierre was promoting was nationalism, socialism, and legislated morality. He used the argument of “political morality”, not as a way to define this legislated morality, but rather as justification for something a little different, namely The Reign of Terror. The Reign of Terror was probably the first ever socialist purge of society of all those people whom were believed to be… are you ready for this? …dissenting against the government.

“The murderers who tear our country apart internally; the intriguers who purchase the consciences of the people's agents; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary libelers subsidized to dishonor the popular cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fires of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by means of moral counterrevolution—are all these men less to blame or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?”

The irony then is that “political morality” is essentially the compulsion to follow rule of law, which I agree with. But, Robespierre was a terrorist. An affirmed one at that, who happily murdered people that did not share his vision of what “virtue”, was or what was “moral”, including people that participated in civil disobedience.

Sources
http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/413/
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1794robespierre.html

[ppnl]

Is this a conservative arguing for moral relativism?

I don't believe in absolute god given right and wrong. But I do believe in a calculus of consequence. For example we accepted slavery at the founding of this nation and we are still dealing with the consequence.

Civil disobedience is an attempt by an individual to bring attention to a law that may have a bad consequence. In a sense the individual is placing his judgment above the judgment of society. But he is also willing to take responsibility for his actions if society is not swayed.

So I don't really see the problem.

[Hooboy !!]

Is this a conservative arguing for moral relativism?
Not relativism, subjectivism. The subjective nature of morality makes it impossible to codify. The most that can be hoped for is a system of governance that allows a morally pluralistic society.

The topic of "political morality" came up as an argument for the codification of morality, but I believe that it was a misinterpretation of the phrase.

I don't believe in absolute god given right and wrong. But I do believe in a calculus of consequence. For example we accepted slavery at the founding of this nation and we are still dealing with the consequence.
Some consequneces are easy to predict, some are not. Some appear to be obvious, but are not. Reason is a useful tool here, as long as it is not allowed to evolve into absolutism.

Civil disobedience is an attempt by an individual to bring attention to a law that may have a bad consequence. In a sense the individual is placing his judgment above the judgment of society. But he is also willing to take responsibility for his actions if society is not swayed.
That's fine.

[RED DAVE]

Okay, I'll bite. I've gone this far.

From Hooboy !!:
At the root of the justifications for civil disobedience is the belief that a law is immoral and therefore, people are morally compelled to disobey it.Okay. Vague. I would argue with the words "morally compelled," but let's go on.

From Hooboy !!:
Proponents of civil disobedience further assert that the purpose of rule of law is to be “moral”.As above, vague. But let's go on.

From Hooboy !!:
The problem I have with this assertion is that implies the existence of an objective or universal morality.Wrong, dead wrong, and it shows you've learned nothing. It implies that the person who is going to undertake civil disobedience has a moral code, that's all. I can't source it right now, but Gandhi's position, when he undertook his fasts, was that if the person or group against who he was fasting disagreed with the practitioner of nonviolence, it was their moral obligation to let him starve to death.

From Hooboy !!:
The concept of “political morality” has been raised as an argument for a society where morality is codified in law, citing the writings of Maximilien Robespierre.I raised it. And the reason I did is that you denied that there was such a thing as political morality. It took me about 30 seconds to find a refutation.

From Hooboy !!:
The intent was to show how rule of law is a moral system, but that would be an incorrect interpretation. But, what was Robespierre talking about when he discusses “political morality”? Is it a moral system of conduct? No.Again, remember, my point was not to endorse a system, especially not that of Robespierre, but to demonstrate that the concept of political morality existed.

“Since the soul of the Republic is virtue, equality, and since your goal is to found, to consolidate the Republic, it follows that the first rule of your political conduct ought to be to relate all your efforts to maintaining equality and developing virtue; because the first care of the legislator ought to be to fortify the principle of the government. Thus everything that tends to excite love of country, to purify morals, to elevate souls, to direct the passions of the human heart toward the public interest ought to be adopted or established by you.”

From Hooboy !!:
What Robespierre is referring to is “political conduct” or in other words, what the goals of governance are and since he is discussing a democracy or republic, this also means the political conduct of the governed.And what he is saying is that what should lie behind political conduct are "equality and developing virtue." This is an expression of a hierarchy of political values, which is a political morality. Consult Machiavelli for a very different hierarchy and a very different system.

From Hooboy !!:
In a nutshell, what Robespierre was promoting was nationalismOkay: "love of country."

From Hooboy !!:
socialismYeah, Robespierre was a well-known advocate of workers' control of industry. You really write dumb shit sometimes, Hooboy !!.

From Hooboy !!:
and legislated morality.I suppose "purifying morals" might mean that.

From Hooboy !!:
He used the argument of “political morality”, not as a way to define this legislated morality, but rather as justification for something a little different, namely The Reign of Terror. The Reign of Terror was probably the first ever socialist purge of society of all those people whom were believed to be… are you ready for this? …dissenting against the government.Oh, Hooboy !!: you really need to join the air force as you are definitely off in the wild blue yonder.

Here is what Robespierre wrote:
Thus everything that tends to excite love of country, to purify morals, to elevate souls, to direct the passions of the human heart toward the public interest ought to be adopted or established by you.This is a clear statement of the principles of political morality: the moral underpinnings of the state. You can claim that these morals can be stretch to justify the Reign of Terror, and I would agree. You can say he was a hypocrite, and I would agree. But to say that this is not a moral system, real of fantasized, is silly.

“The murderers who tear our country apart internally; the intriguers who purchase the consciences of the people's agents; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary libelers subsidized to dishonor the popular cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fires of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by means of moral counterrevolution—are all these men less to blame or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?”

From Hooboy !!:
The irony then is that “political morality” is essentially the compulsion to follow rule of law, which I agree with.There is no way that that follows logically from anything you've argued or Robespierre has written.

From Hooboy !!:
But, Robespierre was a terrorist. An affirmed one at that, who happily murdered people that did not share his vision of what “virtue”, was or what was “moral”, including people that participated in civil disobedience.Yeah, in a lot of ways he reminds me of George Bush.

RED DAVE

[Autonemesis]

At the root of the justifications for civil disobedience is the belief that a law is immoral and therefore, people are morally compelled to disobey it.

No, the justification for disobeying a law is that complying with the law entails behaving immorally. Only behavior can be assigned the quality of being moral or immoral. Laws are just words written on a ledger, they have no existence as a moral agent and cannot be immoral or moral, anymore than they can be blue or smell bad. They have no moral consequence except as interpreted and enforced by human behavior. Therefore, it cannot be that the justification for civil disobedience is that a law is believed to be immoral. It is that a law compels people to behave immorally that is the justification for disobeying it.

[laughing dog]

At the root of the justifications for civil disobedience is the belief that a law is immoral and therefore, people are morally compelled to disobey it.
This simply untrue. The root justification is that obeying the law would make someone act immorally. People can choose to act morally or immorally, there is no "compulsion". Given the premise is wrong, the rest of the argument falls apart.


Proponents of civil disobedience further assert that the purpose of rule of law is to be “moral”. This is simply false. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

[Hooboy !!]

Wrong, dead wrong, and it shows you've learned nothing. It implies that the person who is going to undertake civil disobedience has a moral code, that's all. I can't source it right now, but Gandhi's position, when he undertook his fasts, was that if the person or group against who he was fasting disagreed with the practitioner of nonviolence, it was their moral obligation to let him starve to death.
I agree with this, but this does not make me wrong. The purpose of civil disobedience is to affect social change. In a democratic system of governance this either occurs voluntarily (democratically) or through coercion (terrorism). If it occurs democrtatically, then what you have achieved is a moral consensus. You believe that this is then codified into law and thus the law is a moral system. That would be false. The morality is not codified and the law is not a moral system.

Again, remember, my point was not to endorse a system, especially not that of Robespierre, but to demonstrate that the concept of political morality existed.
Like I said. You have misinterpretted the phrase. Political morality is not a codified moral system. It is a code of conduct that strictly is limited to governance and the governed. It is not a moral system.

And what he is saying is that what should lie behind political conduct are "equality and developing virtue." This is an expression of a hierarchy of political values, which is a political morality.
Nope. Two different things. When Robespierre is referring to "virtue", he is indeed discussing a moral system, but when he is discussing political morality, he is discussing politics, not individiuals, which just so happens (does not necessarily) includes a moral system. A political morality could exist without any goal of promoting virtue or a moral system. That was just his point of view.

I suppose "purifying morals" might mean that.
Yes.

This is a clear statement of the principles of political morality: the moral underpinnings of the state. You can claim that these morals can be stretch to justify the Reign of Terror, and I would agree. You can say he was a hypocrite, and I would agree. But to say that this is not a moral system, real of fantasized, is silly.
It is not a moral system nor is it the "moral underpinnings of the state". All Robespierre is arguing for with his political morality was a social imperative to uphold the principles of the state. That is the irony of you citing him. Nowhere does Robespierre discuss what is and what is not "virtuous". He makes vague references to people being inherently virtuous, which is a load crap. I doubt he would have said the same thing were he living in a pluralistic society made up of pagans, atheists, muslims, etc... His world view only works where everyone shares the same belief system. How it fails is evidenced by the purge that took place.

[Hooboy !!]

At the root of the justifications for civil disobedience is the belief that a law is immoral and therefore, people are morally compelled to disobey it.
This simply untrue. The root justification is that obeying the law would make someone act immorally.
You are just repeating what I said. If a person behaves immorally, this creates a cognitive discomfort, which compells them to alter their behavior. This is the role of the conscience.

[laughing dog]

You are just repeating what I said. If a person behaves immorally, this creates a cognitive discomfort, which compells them to alter their behavior. This is the role of the conscience. No, I am not. There is no compulsion (i.e., an irresistable impulse). People choose to follow their conscience or not.

[Autonemesis]

At the root of the justifications for civil disobedience is the belief that a law is immoral and therefore, people are morally compelled to disobey it.
This simply untrue. The root justification is that obeying the law would make someone act immorally.
You are just repeating what I said. If a person behaves immorally, this creates a cognitive discomfort, which compells them to alter their behavior. This is the role of the conscience.

And so they alter their behavior, and stop obeying the law that compels immoral behavior. That's civil disobedience.

[Samhain]

As Thoreau would most likely tell you after slapping you on the face for this perverted interpretation of civil disobedience...

Civil disobedience doesn't arise from a political morality at all, at least not by your definition. Those who practice civil disobedience do not require that all laws be moral, in fact, anyone with a brain would be able to tell you that a great many laws are amoral. Those who practice civil disobedience do so because a law or group of laws are morally reprehensible to them personally, and following said law (or allowing said law to remain in place without protest, etc.) would be, in essence, acting immorally for them personally.

Seriously, read Civil Disobedience before discussing this any further because you have absolutely no clue what you've been talking about for the past 4 threads.

[Hooboy !!]

AsCivil disobedience doesn't arise from a political morality at all, at least not by your definition.
And what would that be? Given the rest of your post, I am pretty confident that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Those who practice civil disobedience do not require that all laws be moral, in fact, anyone with a brain would be able to tell you that a great many laws are amoral.
First of all, this is a strawman. No where did I say that all laws must be "moral". Far from it. Secondly, my whole point has been that laws are indeed amoral. Some attempts at legislating morality occur of course.

Those who practice civil disobedience do so because a law or group of laws are morally reprehensible to them personally, and following said law (or allowing said law to remain in place without protest, etc.) would be, in essence, acting immorally for them personally.
Yup. That's what I've been saying. You might want to explain it to laughing dog though. He seems to be struggling with the idea.

[Hooboy !!]

You are just repeating what I said. If a person behaves immorally, this creates a cognitive discomfort, which compells them to alter their behavior. This is the role of the conscience. No, I am not. There is no compulsion (i.e., an irresistable impulse). People choose to follow their conscience or not.
Whether they choose to follow their conscience has nothing to do with whether or not their conscience is compelling them to behave one way or another. If they did not feel compelled to act, why would they have to make a decision regarding their conscience in the first place? :rolleyes:

[laughing dog]

If they did not feel compelled to act, why would they have to make a decision regarding their conscience in the first place? :rolleyes: Unless you trivialize the notion that every choice is compelled (irresistabily forced) by one's conscience, this is simply inaccurate. A compulsion is more than a simple choice. An act of simple disobedience may stem from a compulsion or it may not.

[Samhain]

AsCivil disobedience doesn't arise from a political morality at all, at least not by your definition.
And what would that be? Given the rest of your post, I am pretty confident that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Wrong again, by your own statements (SEE BELOW FOR DETAILS!)

Those who practice civil disobedience do not require that all laws be moral, in fact, anyone with a brain would be able to tell you that a great many laws are amoral.
First of all, this is a strawman. No where did I say that all laws must be "moral". Far from it. Secondly, my whole point has been that laws are indeed amoral. Some attempts at legislating morality occur of course.

But your assertion, again, was that proponents of civil disobedience require that laws be moral, this is untrue. And it's not a straw man, you need to brush up a bit on your fallacy definitions.

Those who practice civil disobedience do so because a law or group of laws are morally reprehensible to them personally, and following said law (or allowing said law to remain in place without protest, etc.) would be, in essence, acting immorally for them personally.
Yup. That's what I've been saying. You might want to explain it to laughing dog though. He seems to be struggling with the idea.

It isn't what you've been saying...read on (IF YOU DARE!)

Again your arguments fail, even when attempting to post a decent rebuttal to what I've said, because, within the span of only a few posts you have completely contradicted everything you previously stated...

Proponents of civil disobedience further assert that the purpose of rule of law is to be “moral”.

Here's where you failed.

and here...

The irony then is that “political morality” is essentially the compulsion to follow rule of law, which I agree with. But, Robespierre was a terrorist. An affirmed one at that, who happily murdered people that did not share his vision of what “virtue”, was or what was “moral”, including people that participated in civil disobedience.

Which logical fallacy do we find in this statement?

Next!

[Bonniedundee]

In a nutshell, what Robespierre was promoting was nationalism, socialism, and legislated morality. Robbespierre was no socialist nor never went for it, you seem just to have mistaken socialism for gov't control this is nothing like any actual socialist uses the word.

[Hooboy !!]

But your assertion, again, was that proponents of civil disobedience require that laws be moral, this is untrue. And it's not a straw man, you need to brush up a bit on your fallacy definitions.
Now, you are shifting the goalposts from "all laws" to just "laws". It is still a strawman however. No where have I asserted anything regarding the morality of laws in any objective sense. In fact, I have asserted the opposite, that it is impossible to define any law as "moral" in any objective sense. Proponents of civil disobedience use their subjective morality (personal conscience) when deciding whether a law is or is not "moral". Whether or not proponents of civil disobedience "require that laws be moral" is a matter of personal choice and really has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The decision however, to willfully break the law is justified by arguing that the law is immoral.

The rest of your post makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Clearly, you missed the point on what "political morality" is, which would explain why you refused to even try and answer my question.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree with this, but this does not make me wrong. The purpose of civil disobedience is to affect social change. In a democratic system of governance this either occurs voluntarily (democratically) or through coercion (terrorism).Is it always social change? Work strikes weren't about social change, but worker rights.

In fact, I have asserted the opposite, that it is impossible to define any law as "moral" in any objective sense. Proponents of civil disobedience use their subjective morality (personal conscience) when deciding whether a law is or is not "moral".So if laws can't objectively defined as moral or immoral, then governments that create laws can not be objectively defined as moral or immoral. When do you decide whether civil disobedience is justified then if everything is subjective to the individual?

[Samhain]

But your assertion, again, was that proponents of civil disobedience require that laws be moral, this is untrue. And it's not a straw man, you need to brush up a bit on your fallacy definitions.
Now, you are shifting the goalposts from "all laws" to just "laws". It is still a strawman however. No where have I asserted anything regarding the morality of laws in any objective sense. In fact, I have asserted the opposite, that it is impossible to define any law as "moral" in any objective sense. Proponents of civil disobedience use their subjective morality (personal conscience) when deciding whether a law is or is not "moral". Whether or not proponents of civil disobedience "require that laws be moral" is a matter of personal choice and really has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The decision however, to willfully break the law is justified by arguing that the law is immoral.

The rest of your post makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Clearly, you missed the point on what "political morality" is, which would explain why you refused to even try and answer my question.

1. You didn't even ask a question.
2. Your own quotes show that you don't even know what you're talking about.
3. You've denied things that you've asserted already, and we still aren't on the second page on this thread yet.

How many times should I point out the flaws in your own argument before you'll accept that you don't have a clue what you're talking about...

Proponents of civil disobedience further assert that the purpose of rule of law is to be “moral”.

And I know you haven't asserted anything about the morality of law, the above is what you asserted, which is, unfortunately for you, false.

Oh, and...

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern

Which is exactly what you've been doing this entire thread...I, however, have not.

[Hooboy !!]

Is it always social change? Work strikes weren't about social change, but worker rights.
Worker's rights are a social issue. Strikes are not civil disobedience BTW.

So if laws can't objectively defined as moral or immoral, then governments that create laws can not be objectively defined as moral or immoral. When do you decide whether civil disobedience is justified then if everything is subjective to the individual?
Morally justified? You would need a moral authority. The problem for the humanist is that... there is no such thing. Rationally justified? You have to assume that the concepts of "good" and "bad" can be reasoned, absent any emotion or subjectivity. I do not believe that is possible. Social dynamics is a fluid thing. I expect it to change. Governance should be designed to adapt and flow with change.

No system of government can work though without universal agreement to accept the rules and work within them. Anything less is anarchy and nihilism.

[Hooboy !!]

3. You've denied things that you've asserted already, and we still aren't on the second page on this thread yet.
Well then, it should be easy to quote me where I made an assertion and then later denied it.

[godlessmath]

No system of government can work though without universal agreement to accept the rules and work within them.

That goes both ways. Citizens have a duty to follow the rule of law, yes, without this common sense shows that things will devolve into anarchy. This is not "wrong" or "right," but undesireable for most of us. However, first and foremost, governments cannot unduly violate the freedom of the citizens. Not only is this undesreable for most of us, but History has shown that governments that oppress the people end up being overthrown. Without the latter, we cannot presume the former.

[Hooboy !!]

That goes both ways. Citizens have a duty to follow the rule of law, yes, without this common sense shows that things will devolve into anarchy. This is not "wrong" or "right," but undesireable for most of us. However, first and foremost, governments cannot unduly violate the freedom of the citizens. Not only is this undesreable for most of us, but History has shown that governments that oppress the people end up being overthrown. Without the latter, we cannot presume the former.
Agreed. The premise of my discussion has been that government is a servant of the citizens.

[RED DAVE]

Agreed. The premise of my discussion has been that government is a servant of the citizens.So, what we have is a "servant" who has lied to us, brought us into a murderous war on the basis of those lies and continues that war on the basis of more lies.

I would say it's time to get rid of that "servant." Civil disobedience is a terrific way to escalate the conflict against that "servant" until they are unemployed.

RED DAVE

[laughing dog]

Agreed. The premise of my discussion has been that government is a servant of the citizens. Um, the whole point about civil disobedience is that the gov't may not be acting as a servant of the citizens. Duh.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is it always social change? Work strikes weren't about social change, but worker rights.
Worker's rights are a social issue. Strikes are not civil disobedience BTW.So civil disobedience only applies to the public sector then?

So if laws can't objectively defined as moral or immoral, then governments that create laws can not be objectively defined as moral or immoral. When do you decide whether civil disobedience is justified then if everything is subjective to the individual?
Morally justified? You would need a moral authority. The problem for the humanist is that... there is no such thing. Rationally justified? You have to assume that the concepts of "good" and "bad" can be reasoned, absent any emotion or subjectivity. I do not believe that is possible. Social dynamics is a fluid thing. I expect it to change. Governance should be designed to adapt and flow with change.

No system of government can work though without universal agreement to accept the rules and work within them. Anything less is anarchy and nihilism.You are saying Civil Disobedience can not be judged on with a relativist moral mindset. But didn't you say that Civil Disobedience was like terrorism, or at the very least, wrong? If so, was that merely your own personal opinion on it or do you think in the whole spectrum that is the case?

[Hooboy !!]

Agreed. The premise of my discussion has been that government is a servant of the citizens.So, what we have is a "servant" who has lied to us, brought us into a murderous war on the basis of those lies and continues that war on the basis of more lies.

I would say it's time to get rid of that "servant." Civil disobedience is a terrific way to escalate the conflict against that "servant" until they are unemployed.
First, saying something is "true" is not the same as proving something is "true". You and everyone else has been unable to prove that the government lied in regards the justifications for war in Iraq.

Second, insisting that it has been proven when it can be demonstrated unequivocally that it has not been is... well ... surely even you can see the irony.

Third, even if the government did lie, there is a simple way of solving that problem. Vote. If things do not go your way, do not exacerbate the problem by making false accusations about the vote being rigged. Accept your defeat and get over it.

[Hooboy !!]

Agreed. The premise of my discussion has been that government is a servant of the citizens. Um, the whole point about civil disobedience is that the gov't may not be acting as a servant of the citizens. Duh.
If the majority of people do not agree with you that does not mean that the government is not acting as a servant of the citizens. Duh.

[Hooboy !!]

Worker's rights are a social issue. Strikes are not civil disobedience BTW.So civil disobedience only applies to the public sector then?
Some government workers can strike and it would not be illegal either. Some government jobs are vital, such as police, fire, traffic controllers, etc and there are laws that prevent them from striking.

You are saying Civil Disobedience can not be judged on with a relativist moral mindset. But didn't you say that Civil Disobedience was like terrorism, or at the very least, wrong? If so, was that merely your own personal opinion on it or do you think in the whole spectrum that is the case?
No, I am not talking about moral relativism at all. I am talking about moral subjectivism and the absence of any moral authority.

Which really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not acts of civil disobedience are terrorism. "Terrorism" is also somewhat subjective, but I think it is pretty easy to define.

[DougP]

Wrong, dead wrong, and it shows you've learned nothing. It implies that the person who is going to undertake civil disobedience has a moral code, that's all. I can't source it right now, but Gandhi's position, when he undertook his fasts, was that if the person or group against who he was fasting disagreed with the practitioner of nonviolence, it was their moral obligation to let him starve to death.
I agree with this, but this does not make me wrong. The purpose of civil disobedience is to affect social change. In a democratic system of governance this either occurs voluntarily (democratically) or through coercion (terrorism). If it occurs democrtatically, then what you have achieved is a moral consensus. You believe that this is then codified into law and thus the law is a moral system. That would be false. The morality is not codified and the law is not a moral system.


I think this is the single biggest sticking point in the conversation that has been going on throughout the last four threads on this topic. Hooboy!! you assert that in a democratically elected government, the laws automatically reflect the will of the people because the laws were made by that those the people democratically elected to office. However, this is just simply not always the case. People can change their minds in between election times, legislators can vote in ways that those who voted for their place in the legislature did not expect. If the civil disobediance works, because it has the support of enough people, then it would be moral(at least under your definition of moral laws being decided by the majority) When civil disobediance doesnt work, when it doesnt have enough support, then the law stands. Thats the point.

-Doug

[laughing dog]

If the majority of people do not agree with you that does not mean that the government is not acting as a servant of the citizens. Duh. Ah, the expected illogical answer. Explain how the states of Alabama and Mississippi were servants of the black citizens of those States while authorities were enacting and enforcing Jim Crow laws.

[Hooboy !!]

People can change their minds in between election times, legislators can vote in ways that those who voted for their place in the legislature did not expect. If the civil disobediance works, because it has the support of enough people, then it would be moral(at least under your definition of moral laws being decided by the majority) When civil disobediance doesnt work, when it doesnt have enough support, then the law stands. Thats the point.
I agree. Politics are not static and there is a lag between when things change and when the laws change to reflect that change. Part of this is by design. You do not want a system of governance that is so flexible that it changes so much that it provides no stability. The lag exists. People should be aware of it, understand it, and work with it.

My point has been that, you do not know why civil disobedience works. Is it because a majority of people actually change their minds as a consequence of debate, or do they change their minds out of fear?

[Jimmy Higgins]

My point has been that, you do not know why civil disobedience works. Is it because a majority of people actually change their minds as a consequence of debate, or do they change their minds out of fear?Isn't that question what defines the difference between civil disobedience and terrorism?

That said, isn't one of the first points of civil disobedience, in some cases, to give notice of the complaint in the first place, so that the majority knows of the discontent? It forces the issue into the light of day, letting people,that didn't know the problem existed, understand the problem exists.

[Hooboy !!]

Isn't that question what defines the difference between civil disobedience and terrorism?
Yup.

That said, isn't one of the first points of civil disobedience, in some cases, to give notice of the complaint in the first place, so that the majority knows of the discontent? It forces the issue into the light of day, letting people,that didn't know the problem existed, understand the problem exists.
Intentions are irrelevant. There are lots of ways for an issue to be elevated into the public consciousness where it can be debated. I would be a lot more understanding of civil disobedience if it weren't for how easy it is today to get an issue attention.

The thing is though, the public has a pretty short attention span, and has a hard time concentrating on more than one or two things at a time. Unfortunately, there are lots of issues that people want to talk about. So, the loudest shill, or the most outrageous act, or the most money, tends to frame the debate. Right, wrong, or indifferent. It is what it is.

I think part of the justification for civil disobedience stems from how well the right-wing has been historically able to raise money and therefore frame the debate, which forces the left-wing to resort to other tactics. That's another topic though.

[laughing dog]

My point has been that, you do not know why civil disobedience works. Is it because a majority of people actually change their minds as a consequence of debate, or do they change their minds out of fear? Are you claiming that civil rights came about because of fear? And, using your definition of terrorism, isn't any enacted law that causes fear, terrorism? And what about laws enacted because of fear - does that mean they are wrong/invalid?

[Jimmy Higgins]

That said, isn't one of the first points of civil disobedience, in some cases, to give notice of the complaint in the first place, so that the majority knows of the discontent? It forces the issue into the light of day, letting people,that didn't know the problem existed, understand the problem exists.
Intentions are irrelevant.If the intentions are irrelevant, shouldn't the reactions be as well?
There are lots of ways for an issue to be elevated into the public consciousness where it can be debated. I would be a lot more understanding of civil disobedience if it weren't for how easy it is today to get an issue attention.Ask 10 random people on the street what Net Neutrality is. How many do you think will actually know... and that is a thing that has used TV and internet and radio to get the word out.

I think part of the justification for civil disobedience stems from how well the right-wing has been historically able to raise money and therefore frame the debate, which forces the left-wing to resort to other tactics. That's another topic though.I'd say... is there even any evidence that the left-wing uses Civil Disobedience more than the right-wing?

[Hooboy !!]

If the intentions are irrelevant, shouldn't the reactions be as well?
One thing is real, the other is not.

Ask 10 random people on the street what Net Neutrality is. How many do you think will actually know... and that is a thing that has used TV and internet and radio to get the word out.
Yup. Kind of helping me make my point there. Public debate suffers from ADHD.

I'd say... is there even any evidence that the left-wing uses Civil Disobedience more than the right-wing?
Good question. I would say that most people identify civil disobedience with the left-wing. I don't know if that is true or not. Certainly there are examples of civil disobedience on the right. Like I said... sounds like a good part 5 of the discussion.

[Hooboy !!]

Are you claiming that civil rights came about because of fear? And, using your definition of terrorism, isn't any enacted law that causes fear, terrorism? And what about laws enacted because of fear - does that mean they are wrong/invalid?
Sounds like you are starting to get your arms around the concept of "political morality"!

[laughing dog]

Sounds like you are starting to get your arms around the concept of "political morality"! Looks like you still don't have a valid response.

[RED DAVE]

From Hooboy !!:
Agreed. The premise of my discussion has been that government is a servant of the citizens.From RED DAVE:
So, what we have is a "servant" who has lied to us, brought us into a murderous war on the basis of those lies and continues that war on the basis of more lies.
I would say it's time to get rid of that "servant." Civil disobedience is a terrific way to escalate the conflict against that "servant" until they are unemployed.From Hooboy !!:
First, saying something is "true" is not the same as proving something is "true". You and everyone else has been unable to prove that the government lied in regards the justifications for war in Iraq.Hooboy !!, I live in New York. Next time you're here, let me know. I have a bridge I want to sell you. Since you still believe that the Bushies didn't engage in a conscious, deliberate cooking of the evidence, I figure you'll want this bridge. It's only about 125 years old. Hardly used at all except by little old ladies walking their dogs on Sunday.

From Hooboy !!:
Second, insisting that it has been proven when it can be demonstrated unequivocally that it has not been is... well ... surely even you can see the irony.The irony is that you have started a discussion of civil disobedience while denying that the background is civil disobedience against Bush.

From Hooboy !!:
Third, even if the government did lie"Even if"? I love that. Tell you what. When you get to New York, after you've paid me for the bridge (it's a nice color brown by the way), we'll go over to the UN and talk to Hans Blix, if he's in. He'll tell you about the investigations of weapons of mass destruction by the UN in the months before we invaded. I'll pay for the coffee. You pay for the crow you'll have to eat.

From Hooboy !!:
there is a simple way of solving that problem. Vote. If things do not go your way, do not exacerbate the problem by making false accusations about the vote being rigged. Accept your defeat and get over it.Unfortunately, our hallowed electoral system is rigged in favor of liars, cheats, phonies, Republicans, Democrats, etc. The 2000 election showed that.

In the absence of a well-functioning democracy, civil disobedience is a terrific tactic. (It's a great tactic in a well-functioning democracy as well.) I fully intend to participate in it until the last US serviceperson and mercenary is out of Iraq. In other words, I intend to treat this thread, from now on, as a part of the debate on Iraq, which it was from the start.

In the meantime, you can commit civil obedience and volunteer for Iraq.

RED DAVE

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the intentions are irrelevant, shouldn't the reactions be as well?
One thing is real, the other is not.That's absurd. Intentions aren't "real"? If that was the case then murder would be a single crime, not a crime whose charges are typically based on the intent of the killer.

Yup. Kind of helping me make my point there. Public debate suffers from ADHD.But you said its easy to get the voice out. If the public isn't listening, then that would explain why someone needs bring attention to it.

I'd say... is there even any evidence that the left-wing uses Civil Disobedience more than the right-wing?
Good question. I would say that most people identify civil disobedience with the left-wing. I don't know if that is true or not.So you would say something you don't know is true. Well... that's kind of why I asked for "evidence". You clearly made the claim.

[Hooboy !!]

That's absurd. Intentions aren't "real"? If that was the case then murder would be a single crime, not a crime whose charges are typically based on the intent of the killer.
It only becomes relevant in this case at the moment of prescribing punishment. The purpose of "justice" is to be sure that the penalty fits the crime. I would argue that it is not relevant there either. But, that is another topic too.

But you said its easy to get the voice out. If the public isn't listening, then that would explain why someone needs bring attention to it.
Your assumption is that they are not responding because they aren't aware. They might not care or are preoccupied with something else at the moment.

So you would say something you don't know is true.
That would be called a hypothesis.

[laughing dog]

Your assumption is that they are not responding because they aren't aware. They might not care or are preoccupied with something else at the moment. Ah, but intentions are irrelevant. Where I have I heard that one?

[Hooboy !!]

In the absence of a well-functioning democracy, civil disobedience is a terrific tactic
I agree.

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's absurd. Intentions aren't "real"? If that was the case then murder would be a single crime, not a crime whose charges are typically based on the intent of the killer.
It only becomes relevant in this case at the moment of prescribing punishment.You mean as in punishment when breaking the law... which is what Civil Disobedience is typically? So obviously, intent has to be somewhat "real" in deep opposition to what you said when you alluded to intent not being real.
The purpose of "justice" is to be sure that the penalty fits the crime. I would argue that it is not relevant there either.Whoa! You are saying two different things. You originally said the intent wasn't real, but now you are saying intent isn't relevant. If something isn't relevant, that doesn't mean it isn't real. Could you please elaborate what you think the "intent of civil disobedience" is please? Is it real or not?

Your assumption is that they are not responding because they aren't aware. They might not care or are preoccupied with something else at the moment.You are assuming they are not responding because they are preoccupied. The truth is, you don't know what the public perception on a certain thing is. Though in my example, regardless of a tv, radio and internet campaign, I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that 2 in 10, at best will be able to tell you they know about "Net Neutrality". Wouldn't that indicate that the subject is indeed not a matter of disinterest, but a matter of not knowing the situation exists?

So you would say something you don't know is true.
That would be called a hypothesis.When you said:

"I think part of the justification for civil disobedience stems from how well the right-wing has been historically able to raise money and therefore frame the debate, which forces the left-wing to resort to other tactics."

... it didn't sound like you were stating a "hypothesis".

[Hooboy !!]

You mean as in punishment when breaking the law... which is what Civil Disobedience is typically? So obviously, intent has to be somewhat "real" in deep opposition to what you said when you alluded to intent not being real.
How so? Breaking the law, is breaking the law. Regardless of intent.

Whoa! You are saying two different things. You originally said the intent wasn't real, but now you are saying intent isn't relevant. If something isn't relevant, that doesn't mean it isn't real. Could you please elaborate what you think the "intent of civil disobedience" is please? Is it real or not?
It is not real, and it is not relevant... except in sentencing.

Now you are playing games with the phrase "intent of civil disobedience".

You are assuming they are not responding because they are preoccupied. The truth is, you don't know what the public perception on a certain thing is. Though in my example, regardless of a tv, radio and internet campaign, I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that 2 in 10, at best will be able to tell you they know about "Net Neutrality". Wouldn't that indicate that the subject is indeed not a matter of disinterest, but a matter of not knowing the situation exists?
Hard to say. Typically, people do not seek out information, they passively receive information through the radio and TV. Even the Internet to an extent. This is why the free press plays such a vital role in a democratic society. I figure as technology improves, people will be able to be much less passive and do their own data mining and information editing.


When you said:

"I think part of the justification for civil disobedience stems from how well the right-wing has been historically able to raise money and therefore frame the debate, which forces the left-wing to resort to other tactics."

... it didn't sound like you were stating a "hypothesis".
The operative word was "think".

[unrealist42]

My point has been that, you do not know why civil disobedience works. Is it because a majority of people actually change their minds as a consequence of debate, or do they change their minds out of fear?

What would people be afraid of?
That the hippies would get to smoke thier pot?
That the anti-abortion fantics would get to stop all abortions?

Sure there are a few people who would be swayed permanently by such arguments and many who could be swayed temporarily to support one side or another but a period of reflection generally leaves most people unpersuaded to change thier views by the precipitate public action that brings so much media coverage and generates so much temporary hysteria.

When most people do change their views permanently it is because they feel they have accumulated enough information to weigh both sides of the issue and come to a conslusion that most agrees with their temperment.

My question to you is why do you seem to believe that any act of civil disobedience would generate such hysteria in people that they would throw their long held views overboard without reflection?

Are the people just tempermentally hysterical?
Is that your point?

[Hooboy !!]

My question to you is why do you seem to believe that any act of civil disobedience would generate such hysteria in people that they would throw their long held views overboard without reflection?

Are the people just tempermentally hysterical?
Is that your point?
Great question.

It is not just one event though. It is usually a series of events. Escalating in intensity and effect. I think a lot of people will not necessarily change their minds or long held views, but will simply look for ways to end the threat without completely compromising their view.

It doesn't happen over night.