Please see Ghandi and India and please see Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement.
MLK had little if any affect until the Black Panthers showed up. It wasn't civil disobedience that carried the day it was the threrat of violence. Same with Nelson Mandella in South Africa. It wasn't until the militant wing of the ANC came on the scene, completely willing to do violence, that things changed.
You are doing it again, demonstrably untrue. Why do you say this. I simply note that for society to function there must be consequences to people's actions if those actions are contrary to law.
This is the tough thing about the US Constitution. It specifically gives citizens a mechanism to protect themselves from unjust governments. It doesn't say that everyone has to agree with the dissenting voice before that person is allowed to exercise their rights. They decide themselves.
That is a natural result of having the protection. It maybe used and it maybe used against something we ourselves hold dear. The protection is always for those we disagree with. It is easy to give rights to those we agree with, the Constitution guarantees a voice to those we don't agree with.
So, his actions are legit whether we agree or not. They are legitimate because he doesn't think what the government is doing to him is right.
Besides, isn't unreasonable that one of those consequences to his actions be that the law changes?
No, he would disagree with you. What is your basis for making this claim?
I don't read the minds of long dead founding fathers, I just read what they wrote on the subject. He believed government should be a small as possible with as little control over people's lives as possible. I don't think he would agree with the US system as it stands today. To quote him (bolding mine):
"Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.
To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
To establish the rights of citizens and provide a framework of government.
But Brown is exercising his rights. He is arming himself against the agents of, in his opinion, an unjust government.
The framers understood the limits of government an understood that the people might rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Just because they knew this doesn't mean that they thought anyone could try it anytime they wanted without consequences.
That's the point that you are missing.
That's why they enshrined it in the Constitution, so people couldn't use it?
Somehow I don't think you and I are even talking to each other. I don't think you have a clue what I'm talking about.
I see your point completely but I don't think that is the end of the discussion because your point does not allow for people to live the one life they have, and ever will have, the way they want. I think there are other ways to live and many people seem to agree.
This is not about lawlessness. For the same reason I think atheists can live good moral lives, I think people can make good societies with little government control.
NO OF COURSE NOT! That is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from anything that I have said.
Dammit Randfan, it does follow! You are saying that the government is right to punish people who don't follow the law. This automatically means that the anti-civil rights groups were right to mete out punishment to those blacks that had the audacity to disagree with a law.
Now, I do not agree that the civil rights groups were wrong and I doubt that you do. The point is, although I am on the fence with the Brown thing, I think he deserves as much consideration as civil rights groups did.
He is not a criminal because he disagrees with a law. He is not a demon, he is not an animal. He is a man with a dispute with the government.
Rights come with responsibility. Why do you not get that? Having the right to live in the US does not give you license to rape, murder or steal.
No one said it did. You accuse me of fallacies and then think your own are legitimate.
Responsibilities, that's a big word. I think that if a citizen is given the right to disagree with the government, they have the responsibility to do it when they think the government is out of control.
Do you really not think that living in the US gives any individual the right to disobey the law without consequence?
I don't think this is what you meant. I think you are asking if I think living in the US gives someone the right top disobey the law without consequence? The word "not" in your sentence I think is a mistake. Correct me if I am wrong.
It is a double edged sword. We want people to fight against the bad laws and embrace the good ones. Fight unjust civil rights laws but not income tax laws.
No, I don't think you should be able too disobey laws with without consequence but I agree with Jefferson when he said that he hoped the government would go easy on dissenters because they are what keeps government healthy. I also agree that any rebellion is an indication that the government has begun to encroach on the rights of the people.
People actually own their own islands. People live by themselves in areas so remote in places like South America, Africa and others that they are under no law.
Give me a break. How many places are available and really fall outside any country's control? And you still haven't explained why he should ahve to move. He has a smuch right to a piece of ground where he ws born as anyone.
Because to not be subject to laws would lead to anarchy.
That doesn't mean all laws are good. Nor does it mean that you can't have a society with absolute minimal government control.
If someone's utopia is killing people why can't they kill your loved ones without consequence?
Reductio ad absurdum
If it is hell for someone not to have your TV why can't they just take it? It IS in our best interest. Why would you think it not?
Reductio ad absurdum
It isn't in society's best interest to allow murders, rapists, thieves to live they way they want. Why shouldn't we let them?
Because it infringes on the rights of others. What Brown is saying infringes on no one's rights.
I'm afraid that you are not familiar with the history of America. It wasn't simply to step out from under oppression.
[*]America wanted self rule.
They were being oppressed.
[*]They wanted to get away from taxation without representation.
A form of oppression.
[*]They wanted a system whereby the people would have the right to speak out against the government.
Protection from oppression.
[*]They wanted a system whereby the people would have, to some degree, control of the government (democracy).
Protection from oppression.
[*]They did NOT want a system where anyone could do what ever they damn well pleased.
Jefferson wasn't too much against it. Of course, many said he was an anarchist.
They have to move. Otherwise they are using the roads, the traffic lights, they enjoy the protection of the military.
This is the argument put to Canada for why we should help pay for US military operations. It is claimed that we gain protect simply by living next to them. The counter to that is: Who asked you? It certainly wasn't Canada.
Who asked you to put roads there? I have as much right to walk anywhere as you do whether I pay taxes or not. You maybe able to make a case as to why I shouldn't be allowed to drive a car if I live outside the system but you can't make one to prevent me from moving freely.
Militaries do not protect individuals. They protect the state.
I don't believe there is one right way to live that meets everyone's needs.
But you have said that anyone who doesn't agree with how society is set up is wrong. Isn't that the same thing as saying living within that society is the one right way?
How on earth could it be irrelevant as it goes to the very heart of the discussion?
Well, I figured if you felt the song lyrics were irrelevent, anything you said must be irrelevent. I mean how relevent can you be if you don't think all the answers to the world's problems can be found in song lyrics?
