Morosoph's Journal: Civil Disobedience

Thoreau was there first, but people seem to have forgotten the option of civil disobedience in our cowardly modern times.

The worst of it is that we believe that to obey is moral. Is there no way to hold our society to account? No hope of finding a higher principle? No hope of thinking for ourselves? To always trust the averaging process of democracy or of the marketplace (I don't want "libertarians" to feel that they're being let off the hook) is to substitute language and a one-dimensional measure of value (respectively) for experience. To quote from this post (link inserted):

Freedom is not open to contract, and once we are too strongly oppressed, we must remember that. Contract is a means by which we get on. It is a voluntary trade, a voluntary restraint. When our rights are shat upon from a great height, this is not a voluntary trade: it is oppression.

Fair use rights might appear to be the right to rip off an artist; in reality they are a recognition in law that freedom of action trumps property rights. Naturally, they're limited in society, for we do want to protect artists' income streams, but we do not prescribe the death penalty for all misdemeanours, for we believe in graded punishment that "fits the crime", ie. we do not want to deter actions too much.

What do we want to do, then? We want to allow people to break the law if they have sufficient cause. And this is a classic case. Our fair use rights are particularly important, for they link to free speech. This includes the right to quote others our of their chosen context. Without this, political dissent within a free society is not possible. What then is political as apposed to commercial? There is no easy way to deduce that. It has to be left up to the speaker. And sometimes the speaker has to brave prison or other disincentives in order to uphold their rights, and (more importantly) the rights of those who are in a similar position. Civil disobedience is a social act, not an antisocial one. Civil disobedience restores sanity and respect into the minds of the rulers, and reminds them that they are meant to serve us, not rule us.

But civil disobedience is larger than our fair use rights. Our modern cowardice will render our wars, our battles against Nazis, Fascists, communists, and terrorists pointless. Contrary to cyranoVR's quiz, we must not confound a nation's interests with freedom, or even its members' freedom, for collections of people have emergent properties that have nothing to do with the people's own interests.

Woo hoo!

[cyranoVR]

More traffic for my quiz!

BTW - Civil disobedience: who's for it? [nypost.com]

Re:Woo hoo!

[Morosoph]

You are a Commie Traitor. Don't worry, the SWAT team will be over soon to take you to the "enemy combatant" holding camp.

I'm a Brit...

You insensitive clod! ;-)

Cool link! My guess is that the suspensions actually strengthened the political impact of the kiss.

Suggestion

[Stargoat]

I'd suggest that the whole social contract has come under attack. The idea that government is supposed to work for the people, doing three things. Provide for the common defense, create a level playing field for trials, and maintain and protect commerce.

Anything beyond that, and government is overstepping its bounds. I think western governments have become very large and bloated, serving themselves rather than the people.

Re:Suggestion

[Morosoph]

If only it were that simple. The problem lies in consensus opinion IMO. Civil "servants" (AKA bureaucrats) are part of society, and although their job requirements and self-interest induces bias, they deviate from a norm, which, if it were healthier, would not lead them to make the decisions that they do. Not only that, but diffuse gains are rarely tallied by politicians when there are clear-cut interest groups that can be won over with a simple symbolic act or law. Politicians regularly support dying

Re:Suggestion

[Stargoat]

You're both correct, but the problem still remains government. In America, we have the Bill of Rights, restricting those things that government can do. And it's a good thing too, because historically government will go as far as they possibly can.

By taking my money that I have worked for and earned (I'm a young network admin, by no means a rich man) and giving it to those who have not earned it, am I not being oppressed? Government economically oppresses me to help the economically oppressed. They do

Re:Suggestion

[Morosoph]

The trouble is that "earning it" recognises the current state of power. One earns money by supplying goods in proportion to money-weighted desire for goods. This is clearly self-referential. I was refering to another weakness (the two are related, but the resolution is non-governmental IMO, but personal). The weakness is that we trade freedom for comfort. Both our reasons for paying tax and for not paying tax are about an easy life, not about freedom. But paying tax is the least of it: we pay tax so

Re:Suggestion

[Sloppy]

Yes, but the people keep voting for candidates that do this. For all the controversy over the 2000 presidential election, one thing was clear: 99% of the voters said they wanted a very powerful, bloated federal government that watches over its citizens like an inquisitive nanny, and high federal taxes to help pay for it.

In 2004, 99% of the voters are going to confirm that decision. 99% of the voters will confirm that they agree that the parties who passed DMCA and copyright term extension act, were acti