Affirmative Case : Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience has been used to peacefully protest for change for decades. The idea that it is acceptable to rebel against injustice is one that is fundamental to the very start of our nation. The American Revolution, while not a non-violent rebellion, is an example of fighting for something that is believed to be right. It is from here that the idea of civil disobedience stemmed, and from here which it grew. Henry David Thoreau illustrated the need for civil disobedience when he said, “The authority of government… [,] to be strictly just must have the consent of the governed.” The changes that have been brought about by this kind of peaceful protest have changed our world for the better. I believe that civil disobedience is something that

When your human rights are being stripped, it is a great way to change society, as we see in Gandhi’s peaceful revolt. However, in many cases it is not necessary. It would do even more damage, especially if there are other, safer and more human ways for addressing concerns. Laws would be threatened as well as American infrastructure and economy. Through this, civil disobedience requires us to examine the situation. It requires intelligent people to sacrifice something for the greater good, and when it is necessary. The people thinking about disobeying must ask the question “is the law I am being pushed under unjust?” before performing the act. As Gandhi once said “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and

From Cherokee Indians refusing to abandon their homes in 1838 to the Sit-ins of the civil rIghts movement in the early 1960s, people have been using acts of civil disobedience to stand against injustice they saw in their communities. Although there are many examples of people abusing this benefit and causing more grief and shame than progress, many have used it to their advantage to bring about positive change for the greater good of society, therefore acts of civil disobedience can positively impact a free society if they remain peaceful, respectful, and justified.

Civil disobedience is a crucial part of any free society, especially a society that wishes to give its citizens the most liberty possible. Looking back on American history, one can see that the colonists originally protested the laws that Britain had imposed, and had done so peacefully. By not paying taxes and by assembling outside public offices, the colonists disobeyed British laws and the British crown. Their protests not only helped spark the American Revolution, but also made light of the fact that any free society relies on its citizens to disobey the government, especially when it's done peacefully.

Brilliantly put by what many deem to be America’s greatest president of all time, Abraham Lincoln, “Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty.” Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of political protest. Although many may argue that this is the sole way to keep the government in check and to make minorities heard, rational people will realize that it is not this disrespect of the law that proves the democracy of our nation.

There are many civil disobedient that have shown impatience with the process of democracy. The Bill of Rights provides many opportunities for demonstrations to stimulate sentiment, to dramatize issues, and to cause change. These rights are subject to limitations of time and place so as to secure the rights of others. Also, the demonstrations must not be disguised as a right because it defeats its purpose. As the civil disobedient violates a law, and voluntarily submits to its sanctions, he breaches the law but not the peace. To indulge civil disobedience is to bring on anarchy, and the permissive arbitrariness of anarchy is less tolerable than the repressive arbitrariness of tyranny. Too often the license of liberty is followed by the loss of liberty. The disobedient act of conscience doesn’t enhance democracy; it gradually destroys democracy. The non-violent acts of disobedience will give rise to more civil riot. Van Dusen said, even the noblest act of civil disobedience assaults the rule of law. Although limited to method, motive and objective, it has the effect of inducing others to engage in different forms of law breaking characterized by methods unsanctioned and condemned by classic theories of law violation. Once the civil disobedient disobeys one law, he repeatedly subverts all

If we take a closer look at civil disobedience, we can better understand what it means, its goals, and its outcomes. Civil disobedience predominantly exists as direct and non-violent government defiance. Instead of voicing an opinion with a vote or a simple conversation, civil disobedience stands up for what is right using an individual’s whole influence. Therefore, some sacrifices regarding the legality of actions are made in order to preserve the integrity of the mission. In other words, why should a protester follow the law that they are trying to alter? That doesn’t make much sense, therefore civil disobedience allows unjust laws to be broken for the greater good. This method is very effective if, for example, a minority is attempting to

While growing up, our parents taught us what was right and what was wrong based on their beliefs and views. When we were younger, we were taught to follow and obey those who were older than us and possessed a higher authoritative status. One’s reasoning for being obedient includes: religious beliefs, background, and work ethics. Civil disobedience played a large role in America. Creating protests, riots, and sit-ins, America had many examples of disobedience. In America, we value our rights as citizens and individuals. We have the right to protest as stated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution, which is called Freedom of Speech. According to the Webster Dictionary, civil disobedience is said to be “the refusal to obey government demands or commands and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment.” Citizens are willing to accept the legal consequences associated with their disobedient actions. How does the law respond to people who engage in civil disobedience? Fining and jail time are the legal consequences enforced by authority but also there is a trend of change. I believe civil disobedience is justified simply by your own personal beliefs and the rights you attain as a citizen. The law is the law, if you disobey; the authoritative figure is responsible for giving a consequence.

America was founded on a principle of civil disobedience. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers set forth a powerful precedent. The Declaration said in part, that when institutions of government becomes destructive or abusive of unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it. The history of our nation tells us that civil disobedience is a civic responsibility, and in the alleged words of Thomas Jefferson, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. From the Boston Tea Party to the Stonewall Riots, the United States Constitution and advances in racial, social, and gender equality support the idea that peaceful resistance positively contributes to a freer society, and a more equitable America.

Civil disobedience comes in every package under the sun. Whether it be Henry David Thoreau refusing to pay his taxes to protest the Mexican-American War or Mohammed Ali refusing the draft because he believed that they were sending him to fight for rights in another country that he didn’t have in his own. The importance of civil disobedience, particularly in those with influence over the people, is often overshadowed by opposition leaders and naysayers on the other side of the argument. But civil disobedience has kept America moving forward for over 240 years and it won’t be stopping any time soon.

On The Duty of Civil Disobedience, written by Henry David Thoreau, explains that civil disobedience is the act of standing for your beliefs even though they are against the law. Thoreau goes on to say that the government (because it is ruled by the majority) is not always right for everyone especially the individual and the minority. Over the course of American history, there have been many different groups formed for the purpose of civil disobedience. The two that I am going to focus on are the activists of the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Panthers of the Black Liberation Movement. The Civil Rights Movement began in 1954 with the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education. It was basically lead by Martin Luther King Jr.

I believe that civil disobedience can be a problem and also a benefactor in any country with a strong central government. Civil disobedience is often taken out of context in many situations around the world, such as the riots in Ferguson, Missouri beginning in 2014. These riots started after an African American teen named Michael Brown was shot and killed by a Caucasian police officer named Darren Wilson. The officer claimed he was acting in self-defense and that Brown had come charging at him, after the officer had tried to confront him over a robbery he had been associated with. The people involved believed they were fighting for a just cause and soon became violent with government officials when they didn’t get their way. This is one of the times where civil disobedience can hurt a country,

Whether civil disobedience is justified or not, practicing it is the right of any United States citizen, and a trademark of a free country. The policy of popular sovereignty, or the principal that a government’s authority is based on the allowance of its citizens, was an integral part of nearly every state’s constitution even before the Federal Constitution was put into place. Colonists were fearful that their new government, given too much power, could turn into a tyranny similar to that which they had only just gained their independence from. These fears are still relevant today. But some wonder why civil disobedience would be practiced in a country like ours which upholds democratic ideals and provides legal ways to influence what laws are put into place and what laws are considered outdated or

Civil disobedience is as American as McDonald's or apple pie. It wasn't that long ago when America was the only place that a person could peacefully protest the government or its rules without having any fears of being punished. But at what point does peacefully protesting become both civil disobedience and a harmful act to society?

The ones that thought themselves to be superior showed their power by calling the others names.