Why Civil Disobedience?

[PaulOtt]

Note: I'm not questioning civil disobedience in general, just looking to learn more about the specifics.

Why do you do civil disobedience? From what I've been hearing and reading, it seems to be for a wide, wide variety of reasons. Some do it for reasons of personal integrity, and others do it to draw attention to unjust laws. Sometimes it sorta comes unplanned to people when they weren't expecting to do it. I would love to know what the end goal is and what are the steps or milestones you see happening along the way that will help that goal come to be?

I'd love to hear from those that either are now or have previously engaged in it, but also those on the fence like myself.

I'll go first. There are really only two or three situations I can see myself engaging in civil disobedience.

• I have a dream of living off the grid on a piece of my own land, growing my own food, and being basically as self-sustaining as possible. Doing this and keeping up with all the state's fees, taxes, regulations doesn't seem very compatible. If it came up, I'd probably at first conscientiously object along the same lines of the Amish previously. If that didn't work, I'd be civilly disobeying.


• It is possible I'd be a part of an organized civil disobedience demonstration for a specific cause that would help sway public opinion.  The idea would be to maximize the exposure and influence, so a lot of planning would have to go into this.  Ideally, it would set the stage for other action to be taken, like the Rosa Park arrest set the stage for the bus boycott which led to the laws being changed.



• I was put in a situation where following the law was so repugnant I had no choice but to disobey. Honestly, I don't really know where that line is.

I'm not judging anyone and please don't use this thread to argue with one another or try to say one thing is better than another.  Let's keep it constructive. I just want to hear about people's motivations and goals.

[Coconut]

I refused to pay a speeding ticket, because if I gave in, I couldn't rightfully pressure anyone else to challege the system

I played poker in public downtown because I wanted to live like I was a free person.

My future disobedience will likely be based on me being fed up with being pushed around, and feeling dirty following their senseless, micromanaging orders.

[Russell Kanning]

all the specific acts lead to the general idea that you agree with
the means are the end ... if I want to live in a world not controlled by the use of force, i should live that way ... even if some thugs tell me differently (hence cd happens sometimes)
i think your ideas are good ... maybe you can make small steps towards them

[David]

I really like the concept of 'pushing' back at the gov't.  The gov't gets most of its power by slowly forcing itself on people.  They use lots of violence, but usually only enough to pressure compliance, which is why so many people think the gov't is harmless, they never see the actual violence.  But I think one way to freedom is to essentially pushback.  Not literrally, as that is violent, and they know how to respond to violence, but via civ dis.  But slowly, and consistently challenge them. 

The only other options are to 'hide', which doesn't work too well, but if things got so bad that I begin to fear for my safety, I will do.  Likely by leaving the country.  They will have a hard time finding me in the arctic.

Or, the last option, the Palestinian option, or suicide by another name.  Armed confrontation with a clearly superior oponent is suicide.  The Palestinians and a few other middle eastern groups adopted suicide bombings, because they knew they were going to die anyway in a confrontation with the Isrealis, they figured they may as well do it in an effective way.  Carl Drega used the suicide option, in a more american fashion.  I am unwilling to use this option, ever. 

Other reasons for using civ dis is that it works, slowly, but surely.  It also provides a vent for frustration, this was particularly relevant during the civil rights demonstrations.  Those demonstrations without a doubt, prevented a good deal of potentially violent racial strife, Dr. King mentioned this frequently in his speeches.  I have a hope that this is a means to get pot users involved in the movement, though I have not been successful yet.    

One aspect of civ dis I like particularly well is the legacy aspect of it.  The legacy of violence is usually more violence, because it is particularly difficult to break the cycles of spiraling violence.  To put this in perspective, In a speech Dr. King noted that in about 10 years of the civil rights direct action there had been less loss of life than in 3 days of rioting in the Watts district in Los Angelos.  10 years, versus 3 days, do the math. 
The legacy of many revolutions is sometimes a horrible spiral of uncontrollable violence, (French revolution, Russian, Chinese, several south american and african revolutions).  There is no guarantee that if the gun cleaners get their revolution that it will result in anything approaching liberty.  This is particularly alarming since it should be obvious that we are a political minority, and minorities do not control revolutions. 

[Ogre]

I've slowly moved towards the Ghandi example.  I'm going to live free.  I'm not going to harm or endanger anyone.  It doesn't really matter to me any more, if that means I break the law.  If I disobey the law, it is because the law is wrong:

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.