In class today we discussed Rawls' statements on civil disobedience, being more than stopping at the court decision of a test trial. I am now not so sure as to whether or not he was appealing to a characteristic of a good civilly disobedient person, or being more literal..with that being said, if a person is never finished promoting his or her, or their, cause, what is next? This question seems easier to answer for some cases more than others.
What struck me as this being such a difficult question to answer was somewhat theoretical, yet quite feasible. What would Keeler and Corner have done if their was no dispute over the land? After Randy went to jail, and their house was auctioned off (successfully), they were still able to protest, given that there was no decision over the property, and/or the land belonged to the general public. Either way, their occupation was completely legal. If the new family had owned the property as well, what would Betsy and Randy have done? I think this a very tough case, especially because the decision to avoid federal taxes will never leave one alone. So long as they continue to resist, they will forever be evicted from whatever place they legally occupy, unless they live with friends or family. It seems like an incredible and life consuming commitment, based in principle, much more so than the practicality or effectiveness of their decision to withhold federal taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment