Abstract
Governments arise based on a mutual understanding between the governed and the sovereign. Accordingly, the obligation of government remains to the people, and the people owe an allegiance to the government. Although the compromise appears to uphold both parties' needs, conflicting needs results in problems. When the government acts in direct opposition to the needs of the people, the people maintain a certain responsibility to act. Civil disobedience within a legitimate governed society is not always justified.
Disobedience is a powerful tool to achieve your ends, but wrongly used it can be an awful weapon of terror. The purpose of this essay is to analyze the benefits and dangers of civil obedience, to try to distinguish between mere disobedience and sabotage, and to make an attempt to decide when, and what kinds of, civil disobedience might be justified.
Unjustifiable
Unjust laws and oppression often live on unchecked by government, whereupon the people must take a stand against such injustices (Peter, 1995). Currently, policies like the Patriot Act suspend civil liberties and deny individuals their basic rights as citizens in order to protect the majority. When laws violate the social contract between the government and the people, the people no longer must respect their obligation to allegiance.
Classic illustration of justified disobedience exists in the civil rights movement. Citizens under the "separate but equal" policy of the government held little to no civil liberties. Only through civil disobedience could minorities gain their long needed equality. When government denies its social obligations, people may in turn civilly disobey government.
Disobedience is a forceful way of having society do things your way. Even a small group of citizens can, with only a little effort, cause great destruction on the infrastructure of a country. The problem with this is that a small terror......
