During his thoughts and reasoning regarding the case against civil disobedience, Herbert J. Storing ultimately makes the assertions that civil disobedience is largely irrelevant to the issues of today. He goes on to separate the concept of civil disobedience from that of provoking a test case via judicial review, and questions the integrity involved (alludes to violence) of this concept as well. Herbert J. Storing's case against civil disobedience is flawed, int he definition he assigns to the concept, and the minimal implications and practicality he asserts that it has.
I've just given a rough outline of a few key/broader premises to my argument below.
-There seems to be an argument against the irrelevance of civil disobedience today, as the actions regarding the Arab Spring, symbolic federal tax evasion, and socioeconomic protests in many countries, including the United States.
-Civil disobedience is not in a fact a "transition" or "subordinate" to conventional political action or revolution; it is, in of itself, a medium through which laws are challenged. This is given, of course, that "fidelity of law" is maintained, and other feasible, legal, options are explored.
-Operating, loose definition of Civil Disobedience, with these necessary (but not inclusive) conditions:
-A justified and nonviolent act. (I will go indepth on my analysis of what it means to be justified, and nonviolent)
-An action involves members of said society, and a recipient. (their sovereign governing body)
-Maintains "fidelity of law."
-Conveys sincerity to fellow citizens. (fidelity and sincerity go hand in hand.)
No comments:
Post a Comment