Civil disobedience goes hand in hand with punishment. Civil disobedience is committing a crime, nonetheless. No matter what way you look at it, it's still a crime. Unjust or not. There will be a punishment to the crime. If people just committed crimes and there were no consequences then there would be total anarchy. When one commits a crime they should know that there is going to be a punishment after it.
A "harm" to the state could be that everyone jumps on the bandwagon and just disobeys the laws. If everyone thinks that a certain law is unjust, then everyone can have the right to civil disobedience making it impossible to have a civilized group of people, I guess? I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense at all...If everyone were to think a law is unjust, they can disobey it as long as it is done in a peaceful manner. That being said, it shows people that the government really has no authority over them at all, thus the state can't be governed and it is harmed.
In Socrates' opinion, the state should never ever ever ever ever ever be harmed. No matter what. As long as you lived there, reaped the benefits and all that stuff; you never harm the state. In Martin Luther King's opinion, you can harm the state if and only if the law in which you are going to disobey is unjust, AND must be disobeyed in a tasteful and non violent way.
In my opinion, I would go to with a common ground between both MLK & Socrates. I think they're both right but that sometimes it is necessary to disobey a law.
For example, Prop 8. If I think it's wrong I'm going to disobey that law by having a protest even though the state voted to pass it, I think it's wrong and I'm going to fight it.
I can see where both parties make sense and both fail.
That's all.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment