Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take the Vietnam War for example, during that time do you think any of those that may have gotten drafted but decided to choose say going to prison over fighting were wrong? Of course during that time the U.S had never ending propaganda that communism was the most awful thing to ever exist and decided to send people to war for their own selfish and megalomaniac reasons but for those that saw through it and would choose prison over fighting would you view them as the ones in the wrong for defying what the government told them they were supposed to do?
The Red Scare in the US was much more vicious during the 1920s & 1930s, & then again during the 1950s, the McCarthy Era. In the 1920s & 1930s, people were rounded up & deported, held without charge, searched, put under surveillance. Loyalty oaths were instituted, labor unions were suspect, Socialists & Communists were routinely rounded up & incarcerated. The government was purged of people who wouldn't sign loyalty oaths, teachers, actors, writers, journalists, federal & state employees of all stripes were fired, the HUAC held hearings & kangaroo courts.
The people who resisted going to war in Vietnam were various in their reasons. Some didn't want to kill, & were willing to serve as corpsmen & stretcher-bearers or other non-combat roles. Some objected to the war on just war theory, & so on. Some served, some went to prison, some evaded capture.
Even @ this remove, I don't know that everyone who prosecuted the war was evil - it was certainly easier to go along & not fight the apparent trend. But that's what's terrifying about freedom - if we're truly free, then we are responsible for our choices & their consequences. Sobering for an 18-year-old facing the draft.
Despite the rhetoric & the lessons imparted by partisan history & civics books in K-12, countries - including the US - act in their own behalf. Witness the arguments raging here on CD on the perception of the French, on WWII issues, on Japan & the USSR & Nazi Germany. The exhortations in our elementary history books are mostly to reassure the children, I think. As high-schoolers & beyond, we get to (have to) wrestle with history & causes & effects - & leave the graceful rhetoric behind.
It's a frightening task, & not everyone is happy nor comfortable nor even competent @ it - it's a learnable skill, but there are people who don't like to question the truths they've been brought up on. As if truth were fragile, & would break if examined too closely. I think truth is much sturdier than that, & besides, we need to understand ourselves, our motives & drives, as well as those of our neighborhoods, states & countries (& churches & schools & work - there's a lot to look @), & the World around us. @ the end of all that, we can build up an understanding of the World & our place in it. & hopefully, we'll be better people & communities & countries for that effort.
Take the Vietnam War for example, during that time do you think any of those that may have gotten drafted but decided to choose say going to prison over fighting were wrong? Of course during that time the U.S had never ending propaganda that communism was the most awful thing to ever exist and decided to send people to war for their own selfish and megalomaniac reasons but for those that saw through it and would choose prison over fighting would you view them as the ones in the wrong for defying what the government told them they were supposed to do?
You can't judge the past in hindsight that is based on current values. Back at the beginning of our involvement in Vietnam, which began in about 1958, a draft-eligible young man had almost no choice, but to serve his country honorably in the Military. Most of them didn't even consider doing anything else. If he chose otherwise back then, almost everyone would have despised and rejected him.
By the time the protests against the war began to become substantial, most of the country was divided on the issue. The majority of young men who were drafted or enlisted were from the half that still recognized no alternative to military service. Many of those who opposed the country's actions in the war, were so turned-off by the repugnant life-styles of the protesters, that they had no way to collectively and effectively voice their concerns. If the degenerates at the heart of the protests had not claimed a franchise on them, many mainstream people who remained silent, might have come forward and demanded an end to the futile conflict.
This happens often with things that the people don't like. A bunch of unscrupulous and self-serving opportunists take over the protests and give the opposition a bad name. It's happening right now in the Black Rock protest. Thousands of thrill-seekers who have no interest in the welfare of the true First Nation protesters, have swarmed in and disrupted everything, even though the tribal leaders have tried to get them to leave.
I use two yardsticks to decide this question.
Is the government in line with the Constitution?
Is the government defying natural law?
Both are subjective and rest on the individuals opinion.
Examples:
I find nothing in the Constitution or founders writings that support forced redistribution. So, any laws promoting or forcing such are unconstitutional and immoral, IMO.
Is the government defying ones natural and constitutional right to self-defense with gun laws?
Is the government defying ones Liberty by imprisoning individuals for smoking or pocessing pot(not to be associated with illegal distribution)?
Clearly, the government is guilty of many acts against the people, which justifies the resistance of the people by just means(voting, protest, in some cases force).
It's morally wrong to not go against your government if they are wrong. Governments have a long history of constantly being very, very wrong.
What is a government? It's me and you. We are the actual government, and we elect certain people to make our decisions for us, so it's a fool's game from the start, and there are plenty of fools in the government to go around. The lie is that these people represent us and carry out our wishes, but that seldom if ever happens because everyone wants something else it seems, and when a human gets power they want what THEY want, not what others want. Once in office our government representatives want prestige, power and wealth.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. What one person considers moral may be the opposite of what another person considers moral. So who is right? For me all morality is just the golden rule, do unto others what you would have them do unto you. So when the US invaded Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan, I was of the opinion I wouldn't want those countries to invade America, so to me those were immoral wars. In the end you have to decide for yourself what is moral, and whether to act upon it or not. That is what governments do. In my opinion, their opinion is no better than mine. But would I take to the streets, refuse to pay taxes, etc. No. In my opinion that would be futile, and just lead to me being targeted by the government, which might put an end to anything good I might do for the rest of my life.
Conformism. It's called conformism. No matter how nicely you paint it over. Conformism is accessory to a crime.
A movie comes to mind.. Inglorious Bastards... In it, is a great example.. A Frenchman in his best intentions hiding Jews under his house floor. Watch it. He never actually pointed them out to a German officer. He simply conformed to what he way saying.
Conformism.
The OP's premise is based on an assumption that they are right and the government is wrong. The average person has a perspective on issues that is without knowing all the facts. The government may know much more then you and is basing their decision on information that can not be released to the public.
When I worked as an engineer the saying that we all knew was don't assume anything because you know what the word assume means, it means you are an ASSuME for assuming and guessing what the truth is. The point is if you don't want to regret what you did or said in the past to first get all the important info first before you decide who is right and who is wrong.
Take the Vietnam War for example, during that time do you think any of those that may have gotten drafted but decided to choose say going to prison over fighting were wrong?
Better example: was Daniel Ellsberg (and the NY Times) wrong to publish the Pentagon Papers? Ellsberg was a military contractor working at the Pentagon, when he discovered documents demonstrating that the US Government had been systematically lying to the American people for a over a decade about Vietnam. He violated his oath and broke the law by stealing, and then turning over these documents to the NY Times.
Was he wrong?
--
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
