PDA

View Full Version : Civil disobedience..... Any examples of known effectiveness?




tod evans
06-03-2012, 09:34 AM
For the life of me I can't recall any effective use of this technique in affecting change in a political environment, especially in the short term.

If a person looks at the escalation of power exhibited by our government both on and off our shores I have to wonder if civil disobedience does any more than paint a target on your back.

Can anybody provide an example of actual change brought about peacefully?

lib3rtarian
06-03-2012, 10:08 AM
The Indian Independence Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement). There were violent aspects to it (led by Chandra Shekar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Subash Chandra Bose etc.), and non-violent aspects to it (led by Mahatma Gandhi), but it was Gandhi's non-violent, civil disobedient movement which finally did the British government in. However, it could also be argued that the violent acts contributed to it.

But note that the entire India rallied behind Gandhi (millions of people), against a few thousand British. I do not know of any small group effecting change through non-violent means.

Anti Federalist
06-03-2012, 10:44 AM
De-segregation and voting rights in the South.

tod evans
06-03-2012, 10:52 AM
De-segregation and voting rights in the South.

Voting rights are law.....so I'll go along with that one...... women's suffrage too.

As far as "desegregation".....maybe on paper?

And that took decades in order to even notice an actual shift in the political climate.

Anti Federalist
06-03-2012, 12:19 PM
Voting rights are law.....so I'll go along with that one...... women's suffrage too.

As far as "desegregation".....maybe on paper?

And that took decades in order to even notice an actual shift in the political climate.

Oh yeah, it can take generations, no doubt.

Keith and stuff
06-03-2012, 12:33 PM
I don't know of any short term but there are plenty of long term.

The gay movement. It used to be a felon to have gay sex.

Drinking. It used to be against the law to drink.

Medical marijuana. It is against the federal law and used to be against all/most of the state laws to medically smoke marijuana.

After many, many arrests and so on, eventually, pubic perception and legal policy has changed/is changing on these issues.

crhoades
06-03-2012, 01:05 PM
I cannot recommend Gene Sharp's works enough. He has written extensively on this topic. Histories, biographies, manuals.

http://www.amazon.com/Gene-Sharp/e/B001JSC3EI/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

crhoades
06-03-2012, 01:11 PM
Also check out
http://aeinstein.org/

ProIndividual
06-03-2012, 01:22 PM
How about everyday life? You speed everytime you drive (if you're normal), and yet only get caught once every couple years. That's a nullified law for more than 95.5% of the time. Everytime you refuse to wear a seatbelt and aren't caught the law is nullified via Civil Disobedience. Everytime someone smokes weed (and we all know how prevelant that is) the law is nullified. Everytime someone jay-walks across a street and doesn't walk all the way to the corner and cross at the crosswalk a law is nullified. Most of life is ignoring stupid laws via Civil Disobedience. Any lawyer worth a shit will tell you that EVERY person is commiting a felony once every 24 hours, and doesn't even know it. That's because there are so many laws on the books. Like Soviet Russia, no one knows what the laws are because there are so many. Hence, if a lawyer followed you around for 24 hours, he could find a felony if he really tried.

The fact is, we're all breaking laws all the time, and whether we actively or passively do so, it is still Civil Disobedience by definition. Most laws are impossible to enforce with any real accuracy and consistency. As Jefferson pointed out, social norms do more to govern behavior than laws ever will. Laws are a scare tactic...and once you're aware that you can get away with breaking them like 90%+ of the time, they hold no power over you. They're just tyranny. Ignore them when there is enough utility in doing so. It's patriotic to ignore them, in most cases.

Did you know, no matter how violent the government gets toward us (including concentration camps and genocide), that it is illegal to advocate for the overthrow the government by force (despite what the Declaration of Independence says, despite our Founding principles, and despite the Freedom of Speech)?

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

Now you do. So if you should say such a thing in perilous times of state violence against it's citizens, you're commiting a felony.

Oh, you were still commiting a felony before I told you...because "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (ignorantia juris non excusat). But logically, when there are so many laws no one person can know them all, clearly ignorance IS an excuse. But since they say it isn't, and they have the coerced, anti-market monopoly on law, my informing you of your act of Civil Disobedience makes it no less illegal, and no less Civilly Disobedient to ignore the law.

Keep up the fight against tyranny. Keep breaking stupid laws (if you disagree with them). Chances are, you'll never be caught.

PS. One last way Civil Disobedience works in everyday life is when juries nullify verdicts (choosing to hang a jury or vote not guilty simply because they find the law wrong in principle - this is a right, and totally legal).

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

Just don't tell the other jurors or judge why you're doing what you're doing, or they will throw you off the jury. If you aren't on the jury, you'll spend years fighting "jury tampering" charges for informing jurors of their Constitutional right to nullify. You'll beat the charges (rarely is there any conviction on this charge), but it will take years of your life and possibly money to do so.

donnay
06-03-2012, 01:32 PM
Just being a Ron Paul supporter/activist is Civil Disobedience! :D


No One But Paul!!

tod evans
06-03-2012, 06:27 PM
I was just comparing my personal results with actual change in the world I live in...

In the 70's I tended to gravitate toward the peaceful hippy type of folks, sit ins, smoke outs etc...Not much accomplished.

Toward the 80's I found myself running with bikers....No BS just get stuff done...

Now I keep to myself and don't run with anybody, but looking back it was the "in your face" "we have our own code of ethics" attitude that got results, not the peaceful protests...

So I suppose I'm just looking for folks who have lived a different lifestyle and possibly had different results...

ProIndividual
06-03-2012, 08:01 PM
I was just comparing my personal results with actual change in the world I live in...

In the 70's I tended to gravitate toward the peaceful hippy type of folks, sit ins, smoke outs etc...Not much accomplished.

Toward the 80's I found myself running with bikers....No BS just get stuff done...

Now I keep to myself and don't run with anybody, but looking back it was the "in your face" "we have our own code of ethics" attitude that got results, not the peaceful protests...

So I suppose I'm just looking for folks who have lived a different lifestyle and possibly had different results...

I think the hippies won actually, in a weird way. No one thinks weed is life harming stuff anymore, and many, many, many people smoke it. As far as all the commie pacifism, yeah they sort of lost there (thank God). Commie economics is BS, and pacifism can't be used to protect a society (even a free one).

Bikers (if you mean gangs) get stuff done for sure, but so does the mafia...but I think I'd prefer they didn't. If you mean just motorcycle enthusiasts who have real jobs, then yeah they also get stuff done...because they're professionals with brains.

I agree that "in your face/strong code of ethics" can get stuff done...but I'd prefer the "intellectually in your face/well thought out, self defense only, code of ethics" crowd. That would both be controversial and get stuff done. Plus, if anyone throws a punch, they reserve the right to whoop some ass. :)

My life was running with street gangs as a kid, teen, and early twenties...I also knew a lot of bikers (the bad kind) due to my interactions in selling drugs (and a few parties and bars we'd hang in with them). So I know the stuff you mean when you say bikers "got stuff done"....hell, so do most criminal organizations (or for that matter freelance criminals with balls). I never joined a gang or anything, but I certainly lived with them a lot (literally roomed with them). But I never lived the peaceful life until my late twenties onward. I'm like you now, mostly stay to myself. I didn't require prison or being shot to correct my code of ethics. I started reading and that did it. I've converted many people to my way of thinking, even if just in part. I can tell you, I believe in Civil Disobedience...but I do not believe in pacifism. There is a difference. One can include the other, but doesn't necessarily.

I'm all for nonviolent movements of any type...I think they work longterm. I'm against pacifism if someone attacks you or yours (a personal preference for me)...I think that works short term. The trick is balancing the two...because too much of one undermines the other. Nonviolent pacifist movements work because you're showing the world how victimized you are; it relies on you allowing the "man" to stomp you a good one, and the subsequent outrage that it results in from the public who are then forced to rethink their values. Movements that are nonviolent but not pacifist often make the "man" think twice about lashing out, but results in much less public outrage. One undermines the other.

So the questions are...do you want change sooner, or later? And do you mind losing a little blood (and maybe your life) for the cause? If you want change sooner, lose blood and be a pacifist. If you want change later with less sacrifice, then defend yourself. If you want the movement to totally die, be aggressively violent (as the public will not side with you for sure then).

There is no quick path to change and getting stuff done. Sure, Civil Disobedience via pacifism is a slow way to change, but it's even slower via self defense, and slowest yet via aggression. There is no good fast path. Not unless you want to abandon your principles and be a tyrant...that which you obstensibly want to change.

I won't let anyone beat on me or mine...but between you, me, and the fence post........I'm pretty sure fighting back in self defense is just as, or more, likely to get someone I care about (or myself) killed. I just can't sit there and be hit, or watch it happen. I have a bit of a temper when that happens. That's a flaw in me. It's not a great tactic for quickest change or safety, that's for sure. But then again, the safest way forward is to ask for no change, and just "go along to get along"...so maybe because I won't just put up with the status quo, I'm not so flawed as some.

BUT...everything I just said relates to direct Civil Disobedience. My last post related to mostly indirect forms of Civil Disobedience. Indirect forms (ignoring laws, jury nullification, etc.) are much more effective than any protest, whether pacifist or self defense leaning in nature. If everyone just ignored laws, and cops refused to enforce them, and judges refused to hear the cases, and prosecutors refused to prosecute them, and juries refused to convict, we'd essentially have no problems to protest. In fact, all of that doesn't need to happen...only one of those things need to happen, along with us refusing to follow the laws. It only takes one step in the process to join us, and we have won. This is why I advocate indirect action more than direct action. Afterall, most of us aren't pacifists.

Don't think of Civil Disobedience in the false paradigm of self defense vs. pacifism...think of it as that and also direct action vs. indirect action. The majority of Civil Disobedience is carried out by people who never even heard of the term itself, and who just ignore laws they don't agree with. That's the most effective way.

evilfunnystuff
06-03-2012, 08:07 PM
Most people don't think about singing when they think about revolutions. But song was the weapon of choice when, between 1986 and 1991, Estonians sought to free themselves from decades of Soviet occupation. During those years, hundreds of thousands gathered in public to sing forbidden patriotic songs and to rally for independence.

Learn How Estonia's Non-Violent Singing Revolution defeated a very violent occupation. http://singingrevolution.com


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA9PmZo-2jo

Enforcer
06-03-2012, 08:09 PM
Don't think of Civil Disobedience in the false paradigm of self defense vs. pacifism...think of it as that and also direct action vs. indirect action. The majority of Civil Disobedience is carried out by people who never even heard of the term itself, and who just ignore laws they don't agree with. That's the most effective way.

You got the terminology a bit confused. Ignoring laws you disagree with is called passive resistance. It is the step before outright civil disobedience.

In the 1980s I was with a group of people that refused to allow the Sheriff to auction off Oscar Lorick's property for unpaid taxes after Lorick was denied an extension of time to raise the money. Fifty armed men held the sheriff at bay for a couple of days until an anonymous donor offered to pay the back taxes and penalties in exchange for Lorick getting his farm back and the rest of us being able to leave without further incident.

Enforcer
06-03-2012, 08:15 PM
Just being a Ron Paul supporter/activist is Civil Disobedience! :D


No One But Paul!!

Almost every day I am preaching to the people within our circles of ways that they prove the truthfulness of the above statement. Because you are a Ron Paul supporter or a defender of any cause linked to Liberty, the government can presume you are an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist simply for advocating your legal, nonviolent, avenues of redress. Unfortunately, many amongst us are content to allow the government to create precedents to pursue people as some kind of criminal, absent due process AND absent any specific statute making their activities a crime.

evilfunnystuff
06-03-2012, 08:15 PM
You got the terminology a bit confused. Ignoring laws you disagree with is called passive resistance. It is the step before outright civil disobedience.


Yes passive resistance is smoking weed in your house or vacant/low key public area.

Civil disobedience would be openly holding a public smoke out at the liberty bell, or in front of a courthouse etc.

ProIndividual
06-05-2012, 04:34 PM
You got the terminology a bit confused. Ignoring laws you disagree with is called passive resistance. It is the step before outright civil disobedience.
In the 1980s I was with a group of people that refused to allow the Sheriff to auction off Oscar Lorick's property for unpaid taxes after Lorick was denied an extension of time to raise the money. Fifty armed men held the sheriff at bay for a couple of days until an anonymous donor offered to pay the back taxes and penalties in exchange for Lorick getting his farm back and the rest of us being able to leave without further incident.

According to Henry David Thoreau (an American transcendentalist/proto-individualist anarchist), the guy who wrote 'Civil Disobedience' and was credited for its invention as a tactic and concept by MLKjr, etc., Civil Disobedience was both passive and active; direct and indirect. Ignoring tyrannical laws by breaking them was in fact his main tactic. He himself was in trouble for ignoring the Comstock Law that made it illegal for him to publish stories of rape of married women by their husbands (at the time it was legal to rape your wife and considered porn to publish complaints about it, no matter how brutal the rape). He also refused to pay taxes, another act of Civil Disobedience. Breaking bad laws was his personal main tactic, not sit-ins and boycotts.

From Wikipedia:


Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always,[1][2] defined as being nonviolent resistance.

Also:


Collective vs. solitary

There have also been many instances of solitary civil disobedience, such as that committed by Thoreau, but these sometimes go unnoticed. Thoreau, at the time of his arrest, was not yet a well-known author, and his arrest was not covered in any newspapers in the days, weeks and months after it happened. The tax collector who arrested him rose to higher political office, and Thoreau's essay was not published until after the end of the Mexican War.[32]

So, the confusion is not mine. Once you profess to not follow a certain law, you have civilly disobeyed it. Actions, not words, are the best way to profess anything. Solitary (individual) Civil Disobedience is the most common type, and only requires you to refuse to not obey bad laws. Indirect action like solitary (individual) Civil Disobedience is also probably to most effective at making laws unenforcable (as the more people who refuse to follow a law, like jaywalking or speeding, the more expensive - and impossible - it becomes to enforce the law). Why is it the most effective? Because it requires no coordinated effort to result in a commonly prefered result.

Civil Disobedience (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html) by Henry David Thoreau

(Originally published as "Resistance to Civil Government")

ProIndividual
06-05-2012, 04:34 PM
Yes passive resistance is smoking weed in your house or vacant/low key public area.

Civil disobedience would be openly holding a public smoke out at the liberty bell, or in front of a courthouse etc.

This is simply not true. Please refer to my above post.

tod evans
06-05-2012, 05:24 PM
Bikers (if you mean gangs) get stuff done for sure, but so does the mafia...but I think I'd prefer they didn't. If you mean just motorcycle enthusiasts who have real jobs, then yeah they also get stuff done...because they're professionals with brains.
.

Here ya` go with that "collectivist" attitude.......Actually one including assumptions too?

I was just stating that in my experience often times it is uncivil behavior that gets results.

I know Ron Paul advocates civil disobedience and i was looking for actual, not perceived results.... Preferably results that didn't take generations.....:confused:

evilfunnystuff
06-05-2012, 05:43 PM
This is simply not true. Please refer to my above post.

I'll be damned...

jkr
06-05-2012, 05:48 PM
well, there was this ONE time
http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/assets_c/2011/06/v_for_vendetta_crowd_masks-thumb-425x179-36164.jpg

but that wasn't real



or was it???

http://21.media.tumblr.com/sD0X69sBA5aj8o9c9sZ0xYwD_500.jpg

JK/SEA
06-05-2012, 05:49 PM
Arguably, the never-ending protests against the Vietnam war had an impact in ending the war.

Noble Savage
06-05-2012, 06:04 PM
https://opportunitymontana.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/henry-david-thoreau-5.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Flag_of_the_American_Indian_Movement.svg/300px-Flag_of_the_American_Indian_Movement.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement)
my favorite HDT pic....kinda looks like jfk3

Barrex
06-05-2012, 06:12 PM
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Health/images-2/monk-burning.jpg

ProIndividual
06-06-2012, 05:07 PM
http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/Health/images-2/monk-burning.jpg

I demonstration of Taoist "wu wei", or noninterventionist "inaction".

Conviction...the power of one.

ProIndividual
06-06-2012, 05:19 PM
Here ya` go with that "collectivist" attitude.......Actually one including assumptions too?

I was just stating that in my experience often times it is uncivil behavior that gets results.

I know Ron Paul advocates civil disobedience and i was looking for actual, not perceived results.... Preferably results that didn't take generations.....:confused:

What in the hell are you talking about?

I gave a factual meaning of Civil Disobedience so you could define it more correctly and stop asserting mistakenly that it only pertains to direct political collective action.


That's not being a collectivist (quite the opposite, evidenced by my source), and it isn't calling you a collectivist.

Breaking laws you do not agree with IS Civil Disobedience.

Yes, violence gets results...bad results, in case your memory of that time in your life isn't very clear. I've seen people get life in prison for those kinds of results. I've carried caskets of too many friends (and kids too) over those kind of results. If that's what you think is a good strategy, preferable to either solitary or collective Civil Disobedience, have at it. Just don't expect us to buy into the idea it makes sense.

Hell, some people call violent revolutionary acts "civil disobedience"...but it's more collaquialism than based on HDT's famous Treatise on the subject (where the idea originates; see my link on the previous page).

If you think there's a better way, we're all ears...but expect the criticism that comes from advocating "uncivil behavior".

tod evans
06-06-2012, 06:58 PM
Who's the "we"?

As for collectivist statements I was referring to your obvious dislike for organized bike clubs....Assuming that yuppies on trailer queens are somehow more intelligent than actual bikers is pretty foolish.

I've buried friends too, so please don't try and take some perceived moral high ground based on past experiences.

Like I said "I was looking for actual, not perceived results.... Preferably results that didn't take generations". Do you have any examples to offer?

Theory is just that.......

ProIndividual
06-07-2012, 11:49 AM
Who's the "we"?

As for collectivist statements I was referring to your obvious dislike for organized bike clubs....Assuming that yuppies on trailer queens are somehow more intelligent than actual bikers is pretty foolish.

I've buried friends too, so please don't try and take some perceived moral high ground based on past experiences.

Like I said "I was looking for actual, not perceived results.... Preferably results that didn't take generations". Do you have any examples to offer?

Theory is just that.......

The "we" are libertarians...you know, people who believe initiation of aggression is wrong in at least moderate circumstances (circumstances where a path of non-coercion exists)?


As for collectivist statements I was referring to your obvious dislike for organized bike clubs

Wrong. My brother is in one. I was just one their picnics for Memorial Day, and went to the final stop of their bike run. I'm against criminal bike clubs insofar as they're violent. I don't mind they sell drugs, as that is simply Civil Disobedience to a tyrannical law that has nothing directly to do with violence. Nonviolent clubs are something I'm around a lot. Violent clubs are something I used to be around, but choose not be now because it violates the very principles of my philosophy (libertarianism). The same goes for all violent gangs of any kind I used to be around, despite their transportation preferences.


....Assuming that yuppies on trailer queens are somehow more intelligent than actual bikers is pretty foolish.

LOL!!! Please, let's find an IQ test for criminal bikers and those yuppy bikers...I'd bet my house the yuppies win. Are you joking here? Seriously? You think criminal bikers somehow are highly intelligent? Then why are they criminals? Why are they violent? The leaders tend to be smart...in a sociopathic genius sort of way. That's hardly going to show up in reading comprehension or IQ. As someone with a lot of actual experience with both kinds of bikers, I find what you just said HILLARIOUS. How completely illogical!

You might want to check your silly assumptions and nostalgia at the door. Clearly, most violent criminals are not the brightest bulbs in the box. Care to refer to prison IQ studies on violent criminals? I bet not.

I can't believe you actually tried to say violent criminals are somehow smarter than mid-to-upper middle class motorcycle enthusiaats...holy shit.

Again, if it's true, it's not collectivism. To say ALL yuppy bikers are smarter than criminal violent biker gang members would be collectivism (as it is not true). To say MOST or SOME would not be collectivism. And again, as a market advocate (and a professional gambler) I'd place my money where my mouth is. You show me studies where your case is made, and I'll find studies that prove my case. Let's bet money on this. Prison studies should suffice for my case, given that they already compare nonviolent criminals to violent criminals and to the general nonviolent non-criminal population.

Everytime some says something like "most libertarians in the United States are minarchists", it does not qualify as collectivism. Why? Because it's true.

Most violent bikers are less intelligent than yuppy nonviolent bikers. This is true, so not collectivist. To argue otherwise requires some proof on your part, as I have proof for my case (beyond simple anecdotal experience).


I've buried friends too, so please don't try and take some perceived moral high ground based on past experiences.

Then quit advocating the idiocy that got them buried or put in prison for life (assuming you're saying the same thing I am: they died in gang related conflicts and went to prison for life for murder).

If you're advocating violence you will be in a minority position on this site, I assure you. So get used to the criticism.


Like I said "I was looking for actual, not perceived results.... Preferably results that didn't take generations". Do you have any examples to offer?

You mean besides the huge list of individual solitary acts of Civil Disobedience that I already listed, that you seemingly ignored? No.

But it works great to ignore laws in your daily life and not get caught doing it the grand preponderance of the time. It effectively nullifies the law itself, and when enough people do it in a non-coordinated manner it makes the law uneforcable for authorities (as it creates a new social norm entirely too expensive to fight).

If all your going to do is define Civil Disobedience incorrectly as a collective action, then you'll never find one that works fast enough to suite your impatience. Define it correctly, and you'll see immediate results. Society is just a collection of individuals...so anything you can do to individually nullify tyrannical laws aids society (and its social mores) immediately.

I'm challenging you to do three things: show a study that proves violent criminals are smarter than the general populace of nonviolent agents...prove to me Civil Disobedience is only defined collectively....and convince me initiations of aggression in moderate circumstances (define above), or violence not in just self defense in these circumstances, is somehow consistent with libertarian philosophy (or longterm, effective).

Short term violence works, longterm it fails...as I explained in an earlier post. Violence undermines the process by which even collective Civil Disobedience works.


Theory is just that...

And so is your theory, buddy. Every human works on theory...every action comes from a personal theory. You're not in an ivory tower here. My theory (libertarian theory) vs your violent theory...let the games begin.

tod evans
06-07-2012, 04:36 PM
Ya' know I kinda feel sorry for you man....

The bad luck you have with people, the experiences that you base your comments on and the fallacy of violence you attribute to me..

But you've got your life all figured out so no need for my sympathy.

Myself...I don't judge a book (or biker) by it's cover........I know each man is an individual....Just in case it matters...several of my closest friends are what kids today call "old-school" bikers.....problem with them fitting into the "stupid/violent" mold is to a man they are business owners, physicians and post-doctorate grads.....just with tats and grey beards...

Damn how those stereotypes just don't hold water......at least in the circles I run in.

Rock on though!

showpan
06-07-2012, 04:38 PM
It's a good thing our forefathers didn't let a little thing like "civil disobedience" get in their way...lol....I'm sure they would have been labeled "terrorists"

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-07-2012, 05:02 PM
For the life of me I can't recall any effective use of this technique in affecting change in a political environment, especially in the short term.

If a person looks at the escalation of power exhibited by our government both on and off our shores I have to wonder if civil disobedience does any more than paint a target on your back.

Can anybody provide an example of actual change brought about peacefully?

Civil Disobedience was once a useful civil measure. It has now become legal precedence. In other words, the healthy food from yesterday will always become can of worms today.

Gandhi practiced Civil Disobedience. Martin Luther King went to India in search of an eastern political solution to challenge the western one established by the white man and found out Gandhi read up a lot on the American transcendentalism of Ralph Emerson, Henry Thoreau, and Mark Twain. (Ralph said man should return to nature, Thoreau actually did it, while Mark Twain depicted Thoreau as a little Huckleberry Finn returning to nature.)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-07-2012, 05:04 PM
For the life of me I can't recall any effective use of this technique in affecting change in a political environment, especially in the short term.

If a person looks at the escalation of power exhibited by our government both on and off our shores I have to wonder if civil disobedience does any more than paint a target on your back.

Can anybody provide an example of actual change brought about peacefully?

Gandhi kicking out the British from India.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-07-2012, 05:08 PM
It's a good thing our forefathers didn't let a little thing like "civil disobedience" get in their way...lol....I'm sure they would have been labeled "terrorists"Yeah, but they weren't. They didn't attack civilians.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-07-2012, 05:13 PM
I was just comparing my personal results with actual change in the world I live in...

In the 70's I tended to gravitate toward the peaceful hippy type of folks, sit ins, smoke outs etc...Not much accomplished.

Toward the 80's I found myself running with bikers....No BS just get stuff done...

Now I keep to myself and don't run with anybody, but looking back it was the "in your face" "we have our own code of ethics" attitude that got results, not the peaceful protests...

So I suppose I'm just looking for folks who have lived a different lifestyle and possibly had different results...

The next step beyond civil disobedience is the practicing of legal abstinence. Avoid all courtrooms. Encourage corporations to meet to agree to cut their legal departments by the same percentage. Starting on the local level, work to make it illegal for lawyers to serve in the government.

showpan
06-07-2012, 05:16 PM
Yeah, but they weren't. They didn't attack civilians.

You mean like our government attacks civilians?

tod evans
06-07-2012, 05:17 PM
Yeah, but they weren't. They didn't attack civilians.

That's exactly why I wrote this; [ If a person looks at the escalation of power exhibited by our government both on and off our shores I have to wonder if civil disobedience does any more than paint a target on your back.] in my original post...

"Our Government" now paints a figurative bulls-eye on your head if you're a known dissident, and any pretense of subtly is gone.

So what's really to be gained through civil-disobedience?

noneedtoaggress
06-07-2012, 06:00 PM
That's exactly why I wrote this; [ If a person looks at the escalation of power exhibited by our government both on and off our shores I have to wonder if civil disobedience does any more than paint a target on your back.] in my original post...

"Our Government" now paints a figurative bulls-eye on your head if you're a known dissident, and any pretense of subtly is gone.

So what's really to be gained through civil-disobedience?

Government only has power through consent. The purpose of civil disobedience is expose the gun in the room and damage their reputation. The escalation of power, while frightening, is ultimately good for our side as it exposes them for what they are. It takes time for millions and millions of people to come to grips with the situation that's taking place, though so it's our job to continue to spread the message of liberty and expose the system for what it is. The internet is great for this, and the increased and cheaper transmission of data naturally leads to more information being passed around exposing these systems, which makes our job that much easier. The internet is the "Pandora's box" of the establishment. The cat is out of the bag, what has been created and what people have been exposed to cannot be undone.

They're escalating their attempts to control by force, because the writing is on the wall. The current system is an unsustainable mess and they are trying their hardest to keep it from tearing apart at the seams. Ultimately, it will prove to be for naught.

It seems the problem you have, more than anything, is with breaking critical mass... but you have this problem in any mode of change. You need to breach critical mass if you're going to effectively bring about any sort of social change. This is because it all starts with ideas. This is why Ron's message is one of spreading ideas. If you want to make changes through the ballot box, then you have to convince enough people to use the political system. The issue with that is that the political system is ultimately just a tool which the established groups in power use to channel dissent into politically correct channels where they can't really do much harm. You vote, you lose, try again in 4 years. The problem with violence is that it's unpredictable, risky, dangerous, and deadly. Most people are not really down for a civil war. It's a scary, disastrous proposition. Civil disobedience has it's own set of risks, but you have the moral high ground, and it ends up putting those in charge in a difficult position of choosing between exerting authority or conceding it. If they choose to exert, then it can have drastic consequences when it comes to public opinion, and chips away at consent. If they choose to concede, then they effectively lose power.

Barrex
06-07-2012, 07:40 PM
I demonstration of Taoist "wu wei", or noninterventionist "inaction".

Conviction...the power of one.
Yea. I still can not believe/ understand that he didnt screamed or even moved a muscle while he was burning.
(and no he was not drunk or on drugs)