Political Theory

Re: Nonviolent Resistance!

Bank Run — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:45:49 GMT

It can be a virtue, temperance. Getting angry is easy to do, but passions tend to get irrational. It's also pretty hard to take a beating. I believe in self defense, but fighting an army of criminals, the despotic hands of the state called police, is not wise. We should in theory be their employers, in practice they suckle and destroy. I like the method of death by kindness, but tellin' a pig that you forgive him of his transgression, is likely to make the guy press, and not yield. Well try it anyway, it may or may not hurt more. It should be okay to run away when a person with a weapon is coming at you. It aint brave to run, but they got an army. When someone goes about in this, I'd reccomend not carrying valuables. Don't call the pigs dirty things, they might puff up and be incited to overtake. I don't salute the flag or take pledges, their goes civil service as a carreer. I think it's neat when folks show compasion for humanity in desperate situations, too bad it sometimes takes desparity to yield this.

Maybe protesters ought to have butcher knives, and/or/like uzi's? So at least the threat of force is two-sided. It is brave to protest without self defense. Then again, maybe alot of causes/protests are just apeals to their masters? I tend to think when two forces of arms meet, a great deal of rationality, and direction is needed to avoid conflict.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

Juan — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:33:37 GMT

In the original Slate article the author (Wu) talked about, drugs, porn, polygamy, so called statutory rape, 'illegal' immigration, copyright, and secession from forced schooling and social security.

He points out that all these activities are 'tolerated' (to varying degrees) - But another way to put it would be perhaps to say that all the 'criminals' (heh) that engage in such activities are engaging in civil disobedience ?

Yes, refusing to pay taxes is the ultimate act of civil disobedience....

Re: Civil disobedience ?

WalterEC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:22:57 GMT

Stranger:

It is not civil disobedience to do things that the state allows you to do, never mind what it says in the legislative books.

Doing something that the state forbids you from doing but that it is powerless to stop, such as a widespread tax rebellion, that would be civil disobedience.

I would say that the non-payment of taxes would be the most perfect and complete example of civil disobedience.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

Charles Anthony — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:43:49 GMT

WmBGreene:

Charles Anthony:
A private bus operator has the right to have any rule he wants even if it is racist or bigoted.
I don't know if that would violate "public accomodation laws" or not like those who were refused service at a lunch counter in the South.

Of course it would violate "public accommodation laws" but so what? Are you suggesting that "public accommodation laws" are valid? They are not valid.

Public accommodation laws are a violation of property rights. Property owners should have the right to refuse entry for whatever reason they want -- even if they are racist.

I hope we do not gradually get statism and anti-statism completely confused in how we define what is a right.

WmBGreene:
The bus boycott started as the result of Parks' civil disobedience.

Correct. However, do not fall into the statist trap of labelling a boycott as civil disobedience. Boycotting is not disobedience whether we are in the confines of statism or not.

WmBGreene:
My comments regarding going back to riding the bus even though the laws were still on the books was just to point out you don't have to have the laws removed just unenforced to have a positive outcome.

Fine.

However, you make an unnecessary concession to statists if you use their invalid terminology.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

WmBGreene — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:57:44 GMT

Charles Anthony:
A private bus operator has the right to have any rule he wants even if it is racist or bigoted.

I don't know if that would violate "public accomodation laws" or not like those who were refused service at a lunch counter in the South.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

WmBGreene — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:51:52 GMT

Charles Anthony:
What Rosa Parks did in violating the law is completely different from the bus boycott and can conceivably be called "civil disobedience" because she disobeyed a civil law -- even if the law is immoral.

The bus boycott started as the result of Parks' civil disobedience.

My comments regarding going back to riding the bus even though the laws were still on the books was just to point out you don't have to have the laws removed just unenforced to have a positive outcome.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

Charles Anthony — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:01:35 GMT

WmBGreene:
Right. It required blacks to give up their seats in the front of the bus to whites and only sit in the back of the bus.

That is a totally different issue.

Using the term "civil disobedience" to describe the bus boycott is wrong no matter what the circumstances because nobody is required to take the bus -- whether or not you believe the state has authority.

What Rosa Parks did in violating the law is completely different from the bus boycott and can conceivably be called "civil disobedience" because she disobeyed a civil law -- even if the law is immoral.

---

I am not trying to justify racist laws but rather I am trying to discredit the use of the term "disobedience" by statists. We should not let statists use the term "civil disobedience" to describe consumers who abstain from using a service. Otherwise, everybody is disobedient. I am disobedient because I boycotted the taxi industry to get to work and I boycotted the train industry and the airplane industry when I drove across the country. I am disobedient because I boycotted the apple industry when I bought an orange et cetera.

If the buses were privately owned, we would not call the boycott a "private disobedience" but rather we would simply call it a boycott. However, we would certainly call Rosa Parks a tresspasser for disobeying the rules of the private bus operator because she knew the rules -- however, disgusting those rules happen to be -- before she entered the bus. A private bus operator has the right to have any rule he wants even if it is racist or bigoted.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

WmBGreene — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:15:57 GMT

Charles Anthony:
the state did not require people to take the bus.

Right. It required blacks to give up their seats in the front of the bus to whites and only sit in the back of the bus.

Rosa Parks purposely violated the law and willingly suffered the consequences.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

Charles Anthony — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:39 GMT

I do not believe that the bus boycott is a valid example of civil disobedience because the state did not require people to take the bus.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

WmBGreene — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:41:58 GMT

Paul:
Nonsense. If the state is breaching your rights, you have the right to try to prevent it, violently if necessary. Most of the time it would be ill-advised - the state has more and bigger guns on its side - but its certainly your right. It would be better if more people violently resisted the impositions of the state.

The civil rights movement purposely enaged in strategic, non-violent, civil disobedience on a fairly large scale and willingly suffered the consequences in order to bring the conscience of the nation to bear on the inhuman treatment they were receiving.

The Birmingham bus boycott went on for 18 months. When people returned to the buses the laws were still on the books but no longer enforced.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

Paul — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:27:36 GMT

WmBGreene:
But things that the state forbids you from doing that they do have the power to stop you from doing because it is not widespread must be resisted only non-violently and people must willingly submit to the punishment (see the Browns as a counter example).

Nonsense. If the state is breaching your rights, you have the right to try to prevent it, violently if necessary. Most of the time it would be ill-advised - the state has more and bigger guns on its side - but its certainly your right. It would be better if more people violently resisted the impositions of the state.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

WmBGreene — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:36:29 GMT

Stranger:
Doing something that the state forbids you from doing but that it is powerless to stop, such as a widespread tax rebellion, that would be civil disobedience.

But things that the state forbids you from doing that they do have the power to stop you from doing because it is not widespread must be resisted only non-violently and people must willingly submit to the punishment (see the Browns as a counter example).

Re: Civil disobedience ?

Stranger — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:33:40 GMT

It is not civil disobedience to do things that the state allows you to do, never mind what it says in the legislative books.

Doing something that the state forbids you from doing but that it is powerless to stop, such as a widespread tax rebellion, that would be civil disobedience.

Re: Civil disobedience ?

Brainpolice — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:47:20 GMT

Shouldn't libertarians try more fully the I'll-get-away-with-it technique ?

Yes. And to my knowledge, there is no better theory than agorism as to how to go about doing that.

Civil disobedience ?

Juan — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:11:42 GMT

I've just seen this at LRC

http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175733/

It seems the state is not so good at enforcing its 'laws' after all ?

Shouldn't libertarians try more fully the I'll-get-away-with-it technique ?