Not only that, but besides this he dismisses in barely half a sentence any revolutionary means of resistance or insurrection. He insists that if you break the law to make your point, you must pay the penalty. He doesn't say why, he simply assumes that we will accept the law as a matter of course. If we illegally download MP3's using napster or similar agents, we should be ready to pay $500k per infraction. I say that's bullshit. And beyond that, he even says that civil disobedience has only been "occasionally useful", and in two sentences is done with his coverage of the issue.
Civil disobedience seems to be a major issue people are not happy with regards to the article.
The one thing that gets to me is that a fair number of people who mention this seem to miss out on the fundamentals of civil disobedience. Firstly, it is a last reasort, second, it is (usually, and preferrably) non-violent, thirdly, you have to be willing to pay the consequences. Encycleopedia Britannica has this to say on the matter.
To me, it's the 2nd and 3rd points that are the most relevant.
First off, if you can't find a non-violent means of protesting, then you've lost, simply because you are showing that you cannot articulate dissent in a positive, or even socially acceptable manner. People don't react well to children throwing tantrums; adults don't need to pull hair to show their frustration.
Secondly, if you do not have the strength of you own moral convictions, why do it? It obviously doesn't much to you. The difference between a crusader and an opportunist is that former will stick to his or her guns, and hence will find admirers, while the latter will wander off when they no longer are getting the attention they feel is owed them.
Sure, this is more of a MLP, but perhaps people should look up the classical definition of something, especially when discussing an issue that has a long history (both positive and negative) in modern democratic thought.
... but then again, what do I know?
[ Parent ]