I do agree that civil disobedience negatively impacts a free society. Many look at this as peaceful protest, no harm done to each opposing party, although this type of protest has a deeper impact than you would think. If a large group of people go on strike to oppose a business, it stops the business from making money and stops people from shopping at that store location. Since the protesters aren't causing any harm, the police can not use physical force to remove the people from this location, since they would be on a public location. This causes a major problem because the protesters either get what they want, or they get removed by force by the police and even if it was legal, the public eye will shame the law enforcers and look down upon …show more content…
Whatever people feel passionate about, they will make a stand for it, whether it puts them at risk or an entire business at risk. However, there are radicals in every group or organization that can take things too far. Such as the Black Lives Matter group, they stand for a good message. They believe that the police are purposely killing black people when they have done nothing wrong. Although their intentions are good, there are a series videos of radical Black Lives Matter members who have yelled at innocent bystanders and passerby's and started a physical conflict with them. Like a stereotype, people begin to associate people of the Black Lives Matter group as savages and angry people who don't know what their talking about and completely disregard their view of the problem at hand. I do believe that civil disobedience and peaceful protest are the best types of protest that you can do to send a message to a higher power, but I do not believe that it is as peaceful as the name
Civil Disobedience, as stated in the prompt, is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Many people believe this has a negative impact on the free society because they believe civil disobedience can be dangerous or harmful. Civil disobedience does not negatively affect the free society in a dangerous manner because it is peaceful and once it becomes harmful to the free society then it is not civil disobedience. Thoreau believed civil disobedience is an effective way of changing laws that are unjust or changing things that as a society and to the people does not seem correct. This peaceful act of resistance positively impacts a free society. Some examples are Muhammad Ali peacefully denying the draft and getting arrested. These men believed that what they saw was wrong and they did something about it but they did it peacefully.
Would everyone like to see how the community is affected ? The community and neighborhood is facing some major consequences. According to “Excerpts Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau described how this one person refused to pay the taxes to the government he decides to say something but his saying resulted to him being sent to prison for trying to stand up to the government. The government has not been telling us the actual issues . Based on the excerpt from the “Civil Disobedience” there are exactly three main points to the story. The first main idea is the people have been using their own ideas to try to get a way to end the government way for all of us to live because we need to see the point for all of us to live a life in
Civil Disobedience is a deliberate violation against the law in order to invoke change against a government policy. Civil disobedience can come in the form of running a red light or j-walking, or in more noticeable methods such as riots. Coined by American author and poet Henry David Thoreau, the term has developed to define the act of disobeying a law one sees as unfit or unjust. Usually the purpose of civil disobedience is to gain public attention to a perceived injustice and appeal to or gain support from the public in a non-violent way. The idea is to force the government to negotiate or else continue with the unwanted behavior; or in simpler terms, to “clog the machine” (“Civil Disobedience”). It is believed by many that the act of civil disobedience is justifiable in a democratic government like that of the United States. A Democracy is defined as a form of government controlled by elected representatives or by the people themselves. However, in order to have a stable government, it must be built on a stable society. Societal welfare is the general good for the public and how its members take action to provide opportunities and minimum standards. According to societal welfare, which is the sake of the emotional and physical well-being of the community, the laws must be abided and civil disobedience is morally unjust in our society. Once any member of the society questions the affairs of the state, the state may be given up for lost (“Jean Jacques Rousseau”).
Laws are implemented to enforce civil proceedings in society, thereby enabling individuals to operate and function within a morally stable population. But there is a delicate and uncertain balance between doing so and restricting personal freedoms--for though individuals should not be wholly free to conduct themselves as they please (for fear of anarchy), neither should they be confined to a level by which they are unable to direct their life’s course and pursue personal betterment. When citizens feel this to be the case, they have the right to peacefully display their grievances with enacted law for the advocation of positive change in the society. For if a society is truly free, the government
Non-violent civil disobedience occurs when the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy is characterized by the employment of techniques such as boycotting, picketing, and the nonpayment of taxes. Henry David Thoreau, author of “Civil Disobedience,” participated in a form of non-violent civil disobedience which involved a simple action of rebellion resulting in a night at prison. Thoreau’s essay and the march from Selma to Montgomery led by Martin Luther King Jr., both had the same outlook on unjust laws, the courage to act against the government, and the awareness of the consequences due to their actions.
Throughout Thoreau’s essay, he expressed his opinions and beliefs on the importance of civil disobedience in a society. He talked about how one must use his or her moral sense, conscience, to decide what is just and unjust. From here, Thoreau urged his readers to take action, to stop the machine from continuing its lifeless duty. His call to action is if a system is prone to corruption, the people must disobey it. This means that personal endangerment may be needed to do what is right. Going against the status quo to uphold justice and ethics is the basic message behind Thoreau’s essay.
Many people choose to use violence in their own ways to achieve the goals they have set upon themselves. But are there situations where violent disobedience is ever justified? You might be thinking, what is violent disobedience? Violent disobedience is the act of breaking a rule placed upon oneself, ready to accept any punishment that is to come to thee. You could violently disobey anyone such as the police, your parents, and even yourself. I believe only in certain situations one should be allowed to violently disobey an order give to him or her. No matter, one must accept ones hardships with outstanding stoicism to be able to succeed in controlling your actions for the greater good.
This Civil Rights Act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our hearts, to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country” (Lyndon B. Johnson). The civil rights were the hardest times for African Americans to do anything from going to school, to even going to the bathroom, they were not aloud to be associated with anything the whites were able to do. They were sprayed with water hoses when they marched the streets fighting for their rights. Most people saw them for being nasty people because of their skin color, not everyone saw them for who they were, they were just like the whites just a different skin color. It is unfair how they were treated, looking back and seeing how they were treated, us whites should be ashamed of how we treated them. When people become dissatisfied with the way they are treated they fight for their rights: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Shelley v. Kramer, and Brown v. Board of the Education.
From the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the Civil Rights Movement and the Pro-Life Movement of the 1960s, to the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street Movement of current times, “those struggling against unjust laws have engaged in acts of deliberate, open disobedience to government power to uphold higher principles regarding human rights and social justice” (DeForrest, 1998, p. 653) through nonviolent protests. Perhaps the most well-known of the non-violent protests are those associated with the Civil Rights movement. The movement was felt across the south, yet Birmingham, Alabama was known for its unequal treatment of blacks and became the focus of the Civil Rights Movement. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, African-Americans in Birmingham, began daily demonstrations and sit-ins to protest discrimination at lunch counters and in public facilities. These demonstrations were organized to draw attention to the injustices in the city. The demonstrations resulted in the arrest of protesters, including Martin Luther King. After King was arrested in Birmingham for taking part in a peaceful march to draw attention to the way that African-Americans were being treated there, their lack of voter rights, and the extreme injustice they faced in Alabama he wrote his now famous “Letter from Birmingham.”
Civil Disobedience was always and will always be a part of society whether people like it or not. Whether it be through woman pretending to be men to fight in an army, or through refusing to give up your seat to a human of a different race, it is undeniable how massive the change that civil disobedience has caused. When one hears the phrase civil disobedience they most likely automatically think of Dr. Martin Luther King and his struggle to fight or basic equality. He inspired his followers to fight non violently and to fight for what is right. He would march peacefully through the streets, so everyone could see their efforts, he would encourage sit ins, where black people would sit benignly at all white counters, showing how they should be allowed to sit anywhere.
We stopped only once on the drive down Friday to the Women’s March on Washington DC, and the rest stop was filled with people wearing pink pussyhats. Cars sporting homemade ‘honk if you’re going to the women’s march’, signs in the window caravanned to the nations capitol and we devised a new car game called ‘spot whose going to the march.’ While some officials put the numbers at 500,000, as someone who was at the march I’d say that number is grossly underestimated. The National Park Service hasn’t provided crowd estimates for gatherings since 1995 when they were threatened with a lawsuit by the organizers of the Million Man March.
The concepts of obedience and disobedience are evident from the beginning of one 's life. Young children are born with the tendency to do things that are against what they are told or what they know they should do. They don 't have to learn how to disobey; it is an innate behavior. This struggle between obedience and disobedience carries on throughout our lives. There are three major factors that can cause obedience and disobedience; authority, social pressure, and situations. Each of these vastly impact an individual 's behavior and cause them to act in ways they would normally not.
I am a pacifist; I do not believe in nor promote violence. I do, however, promote peaceful protest. The act of civil disobedience, of protesting something that is unjust, unconstitutional is well within our constitutional rights. The right to criticize our government is one that was given, that was fought for by our founding fathers. It is an act that affects our society in a very positive way; peaceful resistance encourages others to criticize a cruel and unfair government. Peaceful protests, strikes, and boycotts have the opportunity to gain the government's attention, to try and stop these so-called "anarchists". When we look back at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we see a hero. We see someone who is intelligent, who is not afraid to argue,
Having learn the history of the of our past riots, boycotts, and protest, I figured out that violet does not lead us to victory of our rights. There are, in my opinion, three ways to get the government on our side without violence. Those reasons are boycotting, petitions, and protesting. The first way to get the government on our side without violence is by boycotting.
I have personally been involved with Civil Disobedience. On March 14, 2018, the school held a walk out. I decided to partake in it, all the students that wanted to, quietly got up and left class to stand outside and protest and give 17 minutes of silence for the 17 lives of fellow students lost in the shooting that occurred in Florida. The three articles that I will be discussing are “On Nonviolent Resistance” by Mohandas Gandhi, “Letter From Birmingham Jail” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and “ Civil Disobedience” by Erik Cockrell.