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.
This one perplexes me. It seems that a regime (either one party or the other) can get increasingly oppressive and most people will still comply. Why though? Is it something hard wired into people's brains? Why was there more massive civil disobedience in the past (civil rights movement, women's right movement, Cesar Chavez farm workers movement, etc) and even not so civil disobedience (John Brown slave revolts, American Revolution, French Revolution, etc), yet now, people aren't passionate enough to at least be willing to defy laws they truly believe to be evil and immoral?
I’ve got to get my kids to school in the mornings
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by MongooseHugger
This one perplexes me. It seems that a regime (either one party or the other) can get increasingly oppressive and most people will still comply. Why though? Is it something hard wired into people's brains? Why was there more massive civil disobedience in the past (civil rights movement, women's right movement, Cesar Chavez farm workers movement, etc) and even not so civil disobedience (John Brown slave revolts, American Revolution, French Revolution, etc), yet now, people aren't passionate enough to at least be willing to defy laws they truly believe to be evil and immoral?
Quote:
people aren't passionate enough to at least be willing to defy laws they truly believe to be evil and immoral?
Today, hero's only exist in the movies and people like Rosa Parks are hard to come by ... However, in Iran many women are removing their veils. They do this even knowing there will be stiff consequences.
In the U.S. we are a Constitutional Republic and people today are more apt to use the law and fight their battles in the court rooms and the voting booths. It wasn't that long ago that situations like that of Kent State occurred and I believe our government and citizens alike try to guard against events like that from ever happening again, even though we are having some problems with our city's police departments.
In the middle east, and some other countries they still use bullets to drive home the idea that it is a bad idea to go against the laws, and I don't think we want to look like them.
For the U.S. to engage in a Spring of civil disobedience would disrupt American lives. Americans like going to work, paying their bills and shopping too much to feel so oppressed they'd have to show more passion than what they do at the voting booths.
Also, imo with armed citizens ... the government is just as scared of its citizens as its citizens are scared of the government and neither want to push the envelope, because there are just some things a country can not come back from and that might be just one of those things. Beside reconstruction can be expensive for the average tax payer ... comply, it's cheaper.
I want people to stop at stop signs so that I won't be hit by one of them. I want people to pay their taxes because I want my streets paved and my firemen to be paid. I want people to obey zoning laws because I want my neighbors to be happy (me too.) I want personal and property crime to be enforced because I want to feel safe in my community. I want environmental laws because I want my air, water and land to be clean. I want truancy and school funding laws to be obeyed because my future depends on having an educated society. Basically, I want to live in a civilized community, where people are respectful of others, not just themselves. It takes laws to achieve that.
If we don't like the laws, we should vote, write letters, demonstrate or run for office to get them changed. Because that's what civil society does.
This one perplexes me. It seems that a regime (either one party or the other) can get increasingly oppressive and most people will still comply. Why though? Is it something hard wired into people's brains? Why was there more massive civil disobedience in the past (civil rights movement, women's right movement, Cesar Chavez farm workers movement, etc) and even not so civil disobedience (John Brown slave revolts, American Revolution, French Revolution, etc), yet now, people aren't passionate enough to at least be willing to defy laws they truly believe to be evil and immoral?
Exactly what law do you think I should go and enact civil disobedience over?
I vote and right my representatives, that is how I exert my influence. If any of the avenues ever are prohibited, then I may consider civil disobedience. Until then, I have not been denied any rights, and even if/when I am, it would have to be to the point civil disobedience is the only way instead of other ways like voting and the judicial system.
I want people to stop at stop signs so that I won't be hit by one of them. I want people to pay their taxes because I want my streets paved and my firemen to be paid. I want people to obey zoning laws because I want my neighbors to be happy (me too.) I want personal and property crime to be enforced because I want to feel safe in my community. I want environmental laws because I want my air, water and land to be clean. I want truancy and school funding laws to be obeyed because my future depends on having an educated society. Basically, I want to live in a civilized community, where people are respectful of others, not just themselves. It takes laws to achieve that.
If we don't like the laws, we should vote, write letters, demonstrate or run for office to get them changed. Because that's what civil society does.
Not sure what your definition of civilized is, but mine doesn't include forcing others to pay for what I want, or forcing my preferences on them if they aren't harming anyone.
Disagree on the last 2 sentences too. If people are only willing to ask politicians, or to work within the system/play their game, instead of disobeying...no better recipe for oppression.
Frederick Douglass has some good quotes on that topic. Just a couple:
Quote:
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
Quote:
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.
Short answer - Rules against initiating force and violating property rights aren't evil...
If we're talking government laws against murder (as opposed to the societally-held belief that murder is unacceptable, which can exist with or without a state), I actually do see a downside to it. It reinforces the idea that the state is the decider of right and wrong, or that calling it legislation and writing it on very official documents in a formal setting is where the legitimacy comes from.
Murder is wrong because it violates the victim's self-ownership, not because a politician said so. If a politician said murder was acceptable, that doesn't mean society should accept it. But as I've noticed many times, that's the mentality people get into when you talk about "the law", as if it's sacred. It's just politician scribbles.
Americans break the law every second of every day.
IF you're referring to civil disobedience or some type of revolution then the answer is easy, complacency and distraction.
Americans are complacent with their entertainment, junk food, western luxuries, consumerism, tv shows, movies, and video games. They're also distracted by their work and long hours to their company
So you won't see any revolution or mass civil disobedience. Hey! Keeping up with the Kardashians is on!
Short answer - Rules against initiating force and violating property rights aren't evil...
If we're talking government laws against murder (as opposed to the societally-held belief that murder is unacceptable, which can exist with or without a state), I actually do see a downside to it. It reinforces the idea that the state is the decider of right and wrong, or that calling it legislation and writing it on very official documents in a formal setting is where the legitimacy comes from.
Murder is wrong because it violates the victim's self-ownership, not because a politician said so. If a politician said murder was acceptable, that doesn't mean society should accept it. But as I've noticed many times, that's the mentality people get into when you talk about "the law", as if it's sacred. It's just politician scribbles.
I still wonder why people fight so hard over abortion. The government says its OK, so it must be OK right? Any kind of dissent is met with fanatical rage.
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.
