What Is Civil Disobedience?
Whether or not a free society survives wholly depends on the values and perspectives of its own inhabitants. The moment when the people become apathetic about their home is when that society begins to deteriorate. Citizens may be involved in the transformation of a culture or a series of laws in various ways: they may become politicians and devote their lives to executing the laws that allow the continuance of their freedom, or they may be part of the general public who deeply care about the laws that affect their lives. One expression is civil disobedience, and it is typically regarded as either essential or detrimental to our society. I believe that malevolent acts of civil disobedience are suitable and necessary for the foundation of democracy
…show more content…
It is very easy for those who oppose the use of civil disobedience to think that those who practice it will have gotten nowhere with their attempts. Morris I. Leibman in 1964 called civil disobedience a "threat to our society and seemed to hold the law as an irrevocable ultimatum that happens to be the way by which all people should live. He questioned "whether there can be "civil" disobedience where there is a specific intent to disobey the law. Such a specific state of mind is ordinarily treated as the essence of criminality, hence not "civil"...". There appears to be an idea stating today that laws are perfectly correct and that it is foolish and criminal to fight against them. There is a major issue with that argument, and it is the essence of what antagonists of civil disobedience maintains, as well as the crux of what civil disobedience tries to defeat. The civilly disobedient draw their inspiration from examples in the past from the violent revolutionary wars around the world to the peaceful protests against the Vietnam War. They recognize that whatever their battle is, it is more futile to submit to a law that will serve them, whether the rest of society believes that law to be right or wrong. They understand that people have made great strides in politics, such as the reclamation of an entire nation or a landmark decision, when they band together and protest. Finally, they know that they will make the change that they wish to see in the world. While they are the only limiting factor, they have the power to make the greatest
It is very easy for those who oppose the use of civil disobedience to think that those who practice it will have gotten nowhere with their attempts. Morris I. Leibman in 1964 called civil disobedience a "threat to our society and seemed to hold the law as an irrevocable ultimatum that happens to be the way by which all people should live. He questioned "whether there can be "civil" disobedience where there is a specific intent to disobey the law. Such a specific state of mind is ordinarily treated as the essence of criminality, hence not "civil"...". There appears to be an idea stating today that laws are perfectly correct and that it is foolish and criminal to fight against them. There is a major issue with that argument, and it is the essence of what antagonists of civil disobedience maintains, as well as the crux of what civil disobedience tries to defeat. The civilly disobedient draw their inspiration from examples in the past from the violent revolutionary wars around the world to the peaceful protests against the Vietnam War. They recognize that whatever their battle is, it is more futile to submit to a law that will serve them, whether the rest of society believes that law to be right or wrong. They understand that people have made great strides in politics, such as the reclamation of an entire nation or a landmark decision, when they band together and protest. Finally, they know that they will make the change that they wish to see in the world. While they are the only limiting factor, they have the power to make the greatest