In the Haskar reading, he pulls the example of the milk man strike, citing the milk man's justified employment for higher wages, even if it means the suffering of those who depend upon the milk. In this case, Haskar argues that the need for the milk man to feed his (potentially starving) family with proper wages is justified in the end, despite the fact that others dependent upon the milk may suffer as a consequence to the strike.
Is this civil disobedience? While Haskar does note that civil disobedience does need non-cooperation, although non-cooperation does not always need CD, I would definitely consider this example in particular to be non-cooperation; as their is no government or laws for the milk man to interact with. Of course, one could argue the aim is legislation regarding higher pay laws, but, hypothetically, if the milk man were merely exercising his leverage as a valued employee, would this be CD and NC, or just NC? I personally think it is merely the latter.
The difference might not matter that much. If the 'civil' in CD pertains to social order generally, not just positive law, then virtually all non-cooperation could credibly constitute CD to some degree. I think Haksar's example is fairly unrealistic and not very illuminating.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be hard to distinguish between the two. On one hand he is non- cooperative but on the other hand he is doing this for a just cause. Do you not see a strike as a form of civil disobedience when a cooperation is unjust to its employees? The milk man could talk to his union, there are laws set that handle these sort of violations.
ReplyDelete