Essay On Violent Revolution And Civil Disobedience

Like Martin Luther King Jr once said “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”  With these words in mind, I affirm the resolution resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. I offer the following definitions to help clarify the round: Civil disobedience is nonviolent refusal to follow the laws or demands of government to prove a point and the person participating in civil disobedience has to accept the consequences. A democracy is a government by the people, where the people elect representatives or the leader. Not everyone has to vote in a democracy but, the leaders or representatives have to be decided by the majority of eligible voters.

Civil Disobedience What is civil disobedience? What does it do? Why is it important? Is it a right thing? These few questions might pop into one 's head when they hear civil disobedience.

People's justification to engage in civil disobedience rests on the unresponsiveness that their engagement to oppose an unjust law receives. People who yearn for a change in a policy might sometimes find themselves in a dead end because their “attempts to have the laws repealed have been ignored and legal protests and demonstrations have had no success” (Rawls 373). What Rawls says is that civil disobedience is a last option to oppose an unjust law; therefore, providing civil disobedients with a justification for their cause. Civil disobedience is the spark of light that people encountered at the dead end and they hope that this spark of light will illuminate to show that an unjust law should not exist at all. Martin Luther King, Jr, in his “Letter from

Although laws are put in place to protect the citizens on which it is enforced, no system of government is perfect. There are times in which laws are passed that have a controversial effect on society, be it the segregation of race or religion, or the NSA spying on US citizens. Based on this, it can be concluded that civil disobedience is a peaceful way to express the unjustness of a law in hopes of change. Rosa Parks is an excellent example of civil disobedience having a positive impact on society. After peacefully violating the Jim Crow law that enforced segregation, Parks was arrested in order to raise discourse on the treatment of African Americans in American society.

Law and order, as far as most westernized intellectuals are concerned, is the absolute protector of rights. Every advanced democracy subscribes to the continuing presence of law and order, and it’s hard to argue with the results seen and enjoyed today. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Let every man remember that to violate the law is… to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty.” While this sentiment is deeply relevant, it trivializes legitimate grievances citizens have against the legal system. Many of these issues can, indeed, be worked out within the system, and permanent change is achievable.

Humanity. It is what connects everyone together, and what drives us to continue to pursue justice and change, even if it is not accepted. Time has shown us that change is possible, if the voice we use to enact it, is strong and powerful. Changing a law, a state of mind, and a country comes as a long and arduous journey, but the reason to fight is much stronger than any challenge it may come with. The Bill of Rights entitles all American Citizens to specific freedoms, including Freedom of Speech, and we, as people may speak out, if we feel we are being deprived of any of our rights.

Our constitution is the most important document protecting civil rights. Our founding fathers ensured that the ideals of freedom of the people having inalienable civil rights in the United States of America. We are a country that prizes integrity. A strong sense of national integrity that is designed to ensure our government is peopled by those that honor ethical and moral standards through the voting process.

During the formation of a new nation, the government is founded upon one of four theories. The theory that most prominently influenced America's framers was the social contract theory, which can be described as a population in a state of nature giving up as much power to a government as needed to promote the wellbeing of all. To this end, the founding fathers endorsed Philosopher John Locke’s theory that since the government derives its power from its people, citizens are entitled to replace their government if their natural rights are violated. Therefore, during the American Revolution, American colonists were justified to utilize civil disobedience against British policies. Similarly, in modern times, citizens are still justified to practice their obligation explained in the Declaration of Independence that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation . . .

The question of whether or not peaceful resistance toward the law impacts society in a positive way is really a question of circumstance. If I were to refer back to the historical aspects of the subject, then my immediate answer would be yes, it does; peaceful resistance has often prevailed in situations that required immediate attention, yet were simply overlooked by the general public, despite their importance. One extremely important example of this would be the many boycotts during the civil rights movements of the 60's. Civil disobedience was a way to communicate the true inequality represented by the phrase, ''separate but equal'' by peacefully marching for their beliefs. For example, many white officials used various schemes to prevent

Peaceful resistance with civil disobedience has played a huge role in shaping a free society throughout our history, and not just our history as Americans either. There has been many successful peaceful resistance throughout world history. Many forms of this such as, marches,parades,sit-ins,protests,boycotting and even speeches, have positively impacted or changed a free society. I can't talk about civil disobedience or peaceful resistance without talking about one of the most famous civil disobedience leaders, Martin Luther King Jr., from 1954-1968 the civil rights movement was in effect in the United States. Martin Luther King was a major person during this time.

When a law can be resisted without bringing harm to anyone, then that law should not exist. There are, currently on the books, sodomy bans and legislation against atheists taking political office: These laws are insane. Further, it is the state's job to ensure not only that civil disobedience is possible, but that it works. When civil protest fails to achieve results, violence follows. If a people realize that their peaceful voices will not be heard, such as what occurred in France in 1789, then they shall instead use violent methods.

If American people in the past had not participated in peaceful resistance, the United States would not be the same nation as it is today. Many people argue that because the United States took so long to be created, public defiance to laws should not be encouraged. However, civil disobedience to laws often positively affects the free society in many ways. Not only has this changed the United States in the past, but even now allows for people to peacefully protest for what they think is right. Civil disobedience encourages the voice of the people to be heard: for it to be acted upon.

Accounts of civil disobediences have made their way into the paper many times since the start of this country: the Boston Tea Party, Thoreau's refusal to pay a poll tax, and Rosa Park's decision to stay seated on the bus. All of these examples represent a time of distress when people responded in non-violence to prove a point. But many would ask if this is really proving a point or if it is simply disregarding the law and setting a bad example? Well let me ask you this: would it be better to sit back and to hope that someone will speak out about the problem, or to go forward in violence thinking that that is the only way to achieve something? It seems that an act of non-violence is a way of being heard without coming across as irrational or

Civil Disobedience: Righting the Wrong The foundation of civil disobedience is rooted in the concept of moral principal. When existing laws or accepted social behavior are viewed as being unjust, discriminatory or otherwise considered to be morally unfair, many citizens are compelled to take action in an effort to affect change. In 1849 Thoreau wrote about civil disobedience in his work titled On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau believed that a government with too much control minimizes the ability of the people to exercise their own judgment. He claims, “That government is best which governs least.”