Could the civil right movement have succeeded without civil disobedience?

In short: Absolutely. In my opinion.

In short: Absolutely. Imho.
Then would you agree with William F. Buckley, Jr. that civil disobedience is an instrument of lawlessness and therefore object to it?

Obviously it is speculative to say that . I do not believe that the civil rights movement would've gotten very far in the 1950's and 1960's without it . Perhaps as time goes on a gradual societal change would've evolved but there is nothing like revolution to jump start it . The non-violence movement is brilliant in it's concept . But the revolutionary must have justice and right on their side .

It is hard to argue with the effectiveness of civil disobedience in the 20th century. Gandhi ;MLK Jr. Desmund Tutu .It is much easier for the authorities to deal with window breakers and arsonists . Much tougher to deal with people getting in the way ;especially when the cameras are rolling .

I also think economic boycotts work real well also .

Buckley thought civil disobedience perfectly acceptable in some instances i.e. . Religious presecution.

Buckely in retrospect said that he got the civil rights movement partly wrong. He debated the leaders and intellectuals (like James Baldwin )of the movement during the heat of the moment and was more concerned with the inflamed passions then the cause .He was concerned the King movement would unleash forces that could not be controlled . In that aspect he was at least partially prophetic as the riots showed . At the time he favored gradualism .He argued that true empowerment could not be achieved through symbolism and gestures.

He later said he editorial position at National Review was a mistake and supported the creating of a day to honor MLK Jr.
But I blame a lot of the delay in civil rights directly on the Supreme Court ;which decided in 1896 Plessy v Ferguson that separate but equal is equal which was a poor interpretation of the 14th Amendment at best and helped stall the progress that blacks had made post-Civil War.I don't think it a coincidence that the civil rights movement gained traction around the same time that SCOTUS reversed Plessy .

I doubt it.

Could the civil right movement have succeeded without civil disobedience?Hello DC:

Nahhh. And, you can't establish a country by throwing a bunch of tea into the ocean, either...

Oops!

excon

Civil disobedience, in what do you call this, Marches, protests, pickets, perhaps the "strike" for not riding busses.

MLK to me the best civil rights leader truly believed that change can happen though legal protests and though the court systems.

When MLK Jr. was tossed into that Birmingham jail it was for disobeying what he thought was an unjust law.

I agree Tom; MLK Jr. was concerned with unjust law. Thoreau on the other hand was an “individualist” who believed in the sovereignty of the individual and that they derived the legitimate power of civil order from its exercise; that, as Thomas Paine noted, sovereignty is a property of individual agents, not States. The legitimacy of a State is derived entirely from its people.

King was concerned with legislation declaring but not granting human rights; making distinction between just and unjust laws, and basing it on the conviction that there is a moral order in the universe by which human orders must be judged.

The point of civil disobedience is public discourse. It rarely has the effect of directly stopping the abuse toward which it is directed.

Obedience is the only relevant form of consent; to obey is to consent.

It appears to me that these two different strains of thought are yet today something being played out in American Politics. There is one group who would have it that the State must be held sovereign, while another group holds that it is the individual that must be held sovereign.

There is one group who would have it that the State must be held sovereign, while another group holds that it is the individual that must be held sovereign.Hello DC:

Well, since I read the Constitution, you can count me amongst the latter.

Wait! Don't tell me. You're a guy who thinks the state is sovereign. Aren't you a guy who supports the state spying on Americans?? And, Americans should just consent and keep their mouths shut? I think you do.

Well, it should come as no surprise to you that I'm a guy who thinks we should cut the phone lines of the companies who help the government violate our rights. That's disobedience, all right.

excon

As I recall, and research would verify, violence followed closely wherever MLK held his lawful protests. When he got to the end of the parade route, he jumped in a limo and away; fires and lawlessness were close behind.

There is one group who would have it that the State must be held sovereign, while another group holds that it is the individual that must be held sovereign.
Guess which group is the Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal is in. Does their disobedience of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and disregard of international treaty obligations qualify as "civil" disobedience?

They hold government positions and, as such, have a presumption that their actions are legal. Why don't you just go out there and prove that the "Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal" is disobeying a law, and not simply acting in defiance of your opinion? The lib/fascists have controlled Congress for 14 months; what have you come up with?

As I recall, and research would verify, violence followed closely wherever MLK held his lawful protests. When he got to the end of the parade route, he jumped in a limo and away; fires and lawlessness were close behind.Hello George:

I don't know what kind of research you did. But the research I did shows that the violence was done BY the COPS - DURING his marches - not after them.

See for yourself: YouTube - Bridge to Freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1i-R39AAk)

excon

It's clear from some of the responses I've received that some of you simply do not understand what civil disobedience means. There is a difference between Private disobedience and its limits in public effect, and civil disobedience. American prisons are full of people who have committed crimes, and to confuse that with civil disobedience is simply silly.

Civil disobedience is more like the 1971 May Day traffic blocking in Washington, D.C. in which 13,000 people were arrested, or the 1963 March on Washington, which drew 250,000 participants.


But to cast yourself as performing civil disobedience because you read the constitution, or voice that we should cut the phone lines of the companies who help the government violate our rights, or to disregard international treaty obligations is pathetic.

Apathy in the face of injustice is a form of violence. Struggle and conflict are often necessary to correct injustice

They hold government positions and, as such, have a presumption that their actions are legal.
Yes, they presume that whatever they want to do is legal. Presumptuous is a good word for it.

Why don't you just go out there and prove that the "Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal" is disobeying a law, and not simply acting in defiance of your opinion?
The law says that the Government may not eavesdrop on communications within the US without first obtaining a warrant from the FISA court. They have decided that they don't have to obey the law. Pretty simple, really.

The lib/fascists have controlled Congress for 14 months; what have you come up with?
"Lib/fascists"? The Democrats won their razor-thin majority in Congress fair and square in democratic elections. What they've "come up with" is a string of Presidential vetoes, sustained by the Republican enablers.

When MLK Jr. was tossed into that Birmingham jail it was for disobeying what he thought was an unjust law.


A country that in part historically favored slavery, not permitting Blacks to drink from public drinking fountains, and was concerned with seating arrangements on buses, and had laws on books that were skewed to favor Caucasian interests. Can we all say that we would had spent time alongside MLK Jr for his effort to bring equality to the forefront of American minds? For myself, "yes." It would had been a necessity and honor.

A country that in part historically favored slavery, not permitting Blacks to drink from public drinking fountains, and was concerned with seating arrangements on buses, and had laws on books that were skewed to favor Caucasian interests. Can we all say that we would had spent time alongside MLK Jr for his effort to bring in equality to the forefront of American minds? For myself, it would had been an honor and necessity.

I can remember as a younger boy some "unrest" parts of Florida and in
Jr High and High school I can remember several times out school buses having stones and other objects thrown at them. After my move to Atlanta a few years ago, before her death I had the wonderful honor to be a body guard for Mrs King on a few occasions. During my time in Atlanta I followed and visited many of the places where Dr King held meetings and got his hair cut and talked and more. So much of his work has been a real influence on my life.

I can remember as a younger boy some "unrest" parts of Florida and in
Jr High and High school I can remember several times out school buses having stones and other objects thrown at them. After my move to Atlanta a few years ago, before her death I had the wonderful honor to be a body guard for Mrs King on a few occassions. During my time in Atlanta I followed and visited many of the places where Dr King held meetings and got his hair cut and talked and more. So much of his work has been a real influence on my life.

G-d bless you.

How ugly and immoral did it get, or is it still? "Sept. 24, 1965: Asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination, President Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforces affirmative action for the first time. It requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment."
He should have been impeached, but fell on his own sword with the Vietnam fiasco.

Isn't civil disobedience also unpatriotic? Patriotism, after all, is marked by a love of one's country, even its flaws, such as imperfect laws.

Where in history can we point and say, “There is no doubt, civil disobedience brought about social change that was both good, and passed the test of time.

Civil disobedience is immoral because there are other means of bringing about social change. One primary way of doing this is working within the law, rather than disobeying it. Civil disobedience is better in theory than it is in practice.

The truth of the matter is that today there are hundreds of examples where the nonviolent protests that constitute civil disobedience has lead to violent ones.

Hello again, DC:

There is soooo much wrong with what you said, that I'm not even going to reply - except to say... If we followed your precept, we wouldn't be the USA. We'd be an English Colony. I don't know how that fact escapes you.

Ok, I'm going to say more. Those, whose memories are short are going to do stupid things. Going along is stupid. We don't do that. We've never done that. We're never going to do that. That's not who we are. I can't imagine why you think that.

This country was BORN in dissent. This one proud American, who loves his country too, is going to continue in that vein.

excon

I think the politicians have turned the word 'patriotism' into something they can manipulate. DC - they have manipulated you.

Uh, hello excon…I'm afraid you forget our country was brought about through “Revolution,” not civil disobedience.

So far a dissent, (to disagree with a widely held or majority opinion) there are many forums where people can disagree with-out breaking the law.

Civil disobedience rather than encouraging patriotism through means of adaptation advocates selfishness.

It essentially encourages people to disobey the law if they do not thoroughly “like” it.

There is an equal chance of creating social change by working within the legal system and by obeying the law. A truly moral and practical citizen would, as a result, take this approach rather than being civilly disobedient and suffering the implications of their illogical and rash actions.

I think the politicians have turned the word 'patriotism' into something they can manipulate. DC - they have manipulated you.
Politicians have turned the word 'patriotism' into something they can manipulate but perhaps it is you and not I that have been manipulated. Like my wife, I love the country, and unlike so many I stayed by her side in spite of her short-comings.

To continue with your analogy - if your wife beat you senseless and stole your money you'd take it like a beaten puppy and stay around because you're 'patriotic'.

To continue with your analogy - if your wife beat you senseless and stole your money you'd take it like a beaten puppy and stay around because you're 'patriotic'.
I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end. The fact is that she did not do that and I’m not going to get into her flaws. The same is true about America…there is no law condoning government beating citizens senseless. In fact there are laws protecting citizens from being beaten senseless by anyone.

Civil disobedience rather than encouraging patriotism through means of adaptation advocates selfishness. Hello again, DC:

I don't disagree with the above.

Being a sovereign, I AM selfish about MY rights. You should be too. Bummer that you're not. Don't worry, though. If fighting for MY rights also serves to save YOUR rights too, then I'm happy for you.

You, however, being a person who believes the STATE is sovereign, would have course, believe that people should stifle their dissent for the good of the state.

However, the Bill of Rights says something entirely different. It says I'M sovereign - NOT the state, as you assert. It really does say that. It says that I have certain rights... How can I have these rights if the state is sovereign??

How can you criticize my reading of the Constitution, where it's THAT particular document that tells me, in no uncertain terms, that I AM a sovereign - NOT the state??

To me, the above is as clear as a bell. Again, I haven't a clue what makes you tick...

excon

I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end.
So nonviolent civil disobedience is immoral, but violent insurrection is OK? This must be where the "neo" in neo-conservative comes from, i.e. "If you want to change the social order, you'll have to kill me first." Fascinating.

OG, my how you twist words…those are your words, not mine.

Hello again, DC:

Ok, then. Why don't you tell us the steps we should take between writing nice letters and violent revolution?

I'll tell you what the Constitution says, if you're interested… "Congress shall make no law abridging the …. right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What's wrong with that?

excon

excon

Nothing wrong with that…so far as lawful assembly is used; there is a difference you know. The Constitution nowhere say's unlawful assemble is protected under law.

Hello again, DC:

You fell right into my trap. What if the government passed a law that made all assembly illegal? Do you go along with your government? According to you, not to go along would be immoral.

excon

The constitution doesn't say that in the course of lawful assembly a group or subgroup can damage public or private property, which is against the law and violative of the owners' constitutional rights.

excon

What if the Queen had b…s? The point is, she doesn't and we do. By the government do you mean what if both houses of Congress passed a law that made it a crime for people to assemble? Is your hypothetical realistic; I don't think so, but to play along I certainly would not call for civil disobedience…would you? Civil disobedience would not carry us another further than it does today… I would suggest that people follow the direction of Thomas Jefferson, David Walker, Thomas Paine, Che Guevara, Kwame Nkrumah, or Nelson Mandela.

By the government do you mean what if both houses of Congress passed a law that made it a crime for people to assemble? Is your hypothetical realistic?Hello again, DC:

Hypothetical??

YouTube - Bridge to Freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1i-R39AAk)

I don't think you understand how things work down where the rubber meets the road. I'm sure that both houses of the Alabama Congress didn't pass a law that said people can't assemble, but that didn't stop these Alabama cops from making their own law. So, when I say “the government” I'm talking about the cops. Besides, do the marchers care whose law the cops are enforcing?? Nahhhh.

Are you going to tell me that these cops in this video are telling these marchers that they DO HAVE the right to peaceably assemble and petition their government??

Dude! You really do need to pay more attention.

excon

Exon

Spare me the sob-stories that some people today love to linger over and wallow-in self pity over… …and also the jail-house mentality- “Cops are the government.”

You ax What if the government passed a law that made all assembly illegal? And then give me that nonsense after I reply.

OG, my how you twist words…those are your words, not mine.
Well, you did say that civil disobedience is immoral, and you did say that armed revolution was acceptable "as a means to an end", so I don't see how I twisted your words. Please explain how violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience.

Hello again, DC:

You fell right into my trap. What if the government passed a law that made all assembly illegal? Do you go along with your government? According to you, not to go along would be immoral.

excon

Actually in many cities, you have to get permits for assembly, they can deny them. You will have to provide money for clean up, security and more before you can be allowed to have many assemblies.

Well, you did say that civil disobedience is immoral, and you did say that armed revolution was acceptable "as a means to an end", so I don't see how I twisted your words. Please explain how violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience.
Yes, violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is carried out with-in the frame-work of a legal authority; that is, the legal authority granted by the people is not challenged but the ethic of following law is broken…a law is violated.

Where-as with revolution the right of the legal authority is challenged, as for instance in America it was the declaration of independence which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were "Free and Independent States" and that "all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."

Yes, violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is carried out with-in the frame-work of a legal authority; that is, the legal authority granted by the people is not challenged but the ethic of following law is broken…a law is violated.

Where-as with revolution the right of the legal authority is challenged, as for instance in America it was the declaration of independence which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were "Free and Independent States" and that "all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."
Are you saying this with a straight face? Can you really believe that civil disobedience doesn't challenge "the legal authority granted by the people"? And that armed insurrection is "morally superior" because "the right of the legal authority is challenged"? Both approaches challenge "the right of the legal authority", but one does it by force and violence, the other does it nonviolently. Your argument is logically preposterous and morally nonsensical.

Are you saying this with a straight face? Can you really believe that civil disobedience doesn't challenge "the legal authority granted by the people"? And that armed insurrection is "morally superior" because "the right of the legal authority is challenged"? Both approaches challenge "the right of the legal authority", but one does it by force and violence, the other does it nonviolently. Your argument is logically preposterous and morally nonsensical.
Like I pointed out earlier, by that definition everyone who breaks a law is committing an act of civil disobedience; when in fact they are simply criminals. To act criminally is to act ethically immoral. There is a legal and moral path that can lead to a law being changed.

It is a pity you can’t seem to make a distinction between a government (a legal authority) and a law that is passed.

To act criminally is to act ethically immoral. Interesting concept. :rolleyes:

To act criminally is to act ethically immoral. There is a legal and moral path that can lead to a law being changed.

It is a pity you can’t seem to make a distinction between a government (a legal authority) and a law that is passed.Hello again, DC:

Frankly, the pity is that you can't distinguish between a moral law and an immoral one. To you, there's no difference.

To ME, however, it isn't immoral to defy an immoral law. Indeed, the immorality would be going along... What gives me the right to decide? I'm a sovereign.

excon

Hello again, DC:

Frankly, the pity is that you can't distinguish between a moral law and an immoral one. To you, there's no difference.

To ME, however, it isn't immoral to defy an immoral law. Indeed, the immorality would be going along.... What gives me the right to decide? I'm a sovereign.

excon
Morality is a human (or sentient) invention. Once an individual or community has accepted a general set of basic moral premises (e.g. committing a crime is wrong), moral disputes can arise when applying those premises in real-life cases--such as when one has to choose between breaking the law and going-about changing it legally.

Morality is a human (or sentient) invention. Once an individual or community has accepted a general set of basic moral premises (e.g. committing a crime is wrong), moral disputes can arise when applying those premises in real-life cases--such as when one has to choose between breaking the law and going-about changing it legally.Hello again, DC:

Yes, we do that too. We get together and decide that doing such and such is a crime, and it's wrong to do that. Then we write it down and call it law.

But what if the law is immoral? I suspect, although you won't admit it, that you think, simply by virtue of it BEING a law, makes it moral. I don't subscribe that stuff.

So, if one attempts to change it legally and it doesn't work, how long do you wait? 10 years? 100 years? Or do you just go along forever? Given that you don't subscribe to my definition of an immoral law, you wouldn't even try to change one, so how could you answer? You'd just go along.

Nope, there's no question in my mind. The immoral thing to do, would be to go along with an immoral law.

excon

It is a pity you can’t seem to make a distinction between a government (a legal authority) and a law that is passed.
I can distinguish between a government and a law perfectly well. I'm just boggled that you could claim with a straight face that overthrowing a government by violent means is morally superior to nonviolently disobeying an unjust law.

Hello again, DC:

Yes, we do that too. We get together and decide that doing such and such is a crime, and it's wrong to do that. Then we write it down and call it law.

But what if the law is immoral? I suspect, although you won't admit it, that you think, simply by virtue of it BEING a law, makes it moral. I don't subscribe that stuff.

So, if one attempts to change it legally and it doesn't work, how long do you wait? 10 years? 100 years? Or do you just go along forever? Given that you don't subscribe to my definition of an immoral law, you wouldn't even try to change one, so how could you answer? You'd just go along.

Nope, there's no question in my mind. The immoral thing to do, would be to go along with an immoral law.

excon
You just don’t get it do you…Laws are not immoral or moral in and of themselves; morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong.

Laws are not immoral or moral in and of themselves;Hello again, DC:

Yeah, they are.

excon

excon

And you got that from which God?:eek:

Hello again, DC:

You need God to tell you what's right and what's wrong. I don't. I'm smart enough to figure it out for myself.

I'm sure you're on some plane different than the rest of us, but just as an example of how smart I am, I can tell that a law that allows one human being to be owned by another is immoral. You, on the other hand, can't.

I know, I know, I should be ashamed of myself for making such a Godlike proclamation.

You're still out there, DC. Waaaaay out there.

excon

I can distinguish between a government and a law perfectly well. I'm just boggled that you could claim with a straight face that overthrowing a government by violent means is morally superior to nonviolently disobeying an unjust law.
Violent insurrection is your words and I just used them in the “context of revolution”. My original words were: I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end. Which you interpreted as “violent insurrection.” That’s when I complained about you “twisting words.” Then Excon picked-up on your lead and said, “violent revolution.” Then you came back with, “armed revolution.”

During revolution (Which was my premise) there is no legal authority (there is no consent of the governed) all political connection is dissolved between two parties. There is no immorality in that act alone.

Hello again, DC:

You need God to tell you what's right and what's wrong. I don't. I'm smart enough to figure it out for myself.

I'm sure you're on some plane different than the rest of us, but just as an example of how smart I am, I can tell that a law that allows one human being to be owned by another is immoral. You, on the other hand, can't.

I know, I know, I should be ashamed of myself for making such a Godlike proclamation.

You're still out there, DC. Waaaaay out there.

excon
You're the one who claimed Laws are immoral or moral in and of themselves, in other words moral laws are not man-made… how did they come about if not by some other source.

You really do need to pay more attention.

Ex, I've been paying attention and I've been wondering what happened to free speech on college campuses (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/topic/11).

ex, I've been paying attention and I've been wondering what happened to free speech on college campuses (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/topic/11).Please avoid derailing the discussion; you can start your own thread. Thank you.

You're the one who claimed Laws are immoral or moral in and of themselves, in other words moral laws are not man-made… how did they come about if not by some other source.Hello again, DC:

I have no idea what you just said. But, I got it. You think God made the laws and man is just enforcing 'em. Or, some other gobbeldegook like that.

I understand Christians. In your church, you are told not to question God. Just go along.

In my church, we're told to question EVERYTHING - ESPECIALLY GOD!

excon

Hello again, DC:

I have no idea what you just said. But, I got it. You think God made the laws and man is just enforcing 'em. Or, some other gobbeldegook like that.

I understand Christians. In your church, you are told not to question God. Just go along.

In my church, we're told to question EVERYTHING - ESPECIALLY GOD!

excon
I’ve noticed that, with you, it always comes to this…you elevating yourself and putting other people down.

I’ve noticed that, with you, it always comes to this…you elevating yourself and putting other people down.Hello again, DC:

I can't help it if God made me better.

excon

Please avoid derailing the discussion; you can start your own thread. Thank you.

NK, you have a lot of chutzpah. The issue of peaceable assembly and petitioning the government was raised and my post is entirely relevant to that discussion.

The issue was raised here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/civil-disobedience-192132-post926410.html#post926410), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/civil-disobedience-192132-post926419.html#post926419), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/civil-disobedience-192132-post926461.html#post926461), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/civil-disobedience-192132-post927102.html#post927102), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/civil-disobedience-192132-post926469.html#post926469), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/civil-disobedience-192132-post926550.html#post926550) and here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/civil-disobedience-192132-post926639.html#post926639).

College campuses all over this nation have prohibited assembly to exercise one's rights unless they are in declared speech zones, harassed and punished those who have exercised their rights, prohibited assembly of certain groups, censored students and otherwise trampled on constitutional rights.

Brandeis University: Professor Found Guilty of Harassment for Protected Speech (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/755.html)

California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly): Use of Disruption Claim to Suppress Free Speech (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/14.html)

Central Michigan University: Abridgement of Freedom to Display Patriotic Symbols (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/46.html)

College of William and Mary: Suppression of Affirmative Action Bake Sale (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/7.html)

Colorado State University: Students Fight for Rights to Free Speech and Assembly (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/740.html)

DePaul University: Censorship of Student Group Protesting Ward Churchill (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/697.html)

Rhode Island College: Violation of Student’s Freedom of Conscience (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/669.html)

New York University: Suppression of Discussion of Mohammed Cartoons (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/707.html)

Saint Cloud State University: Thought Reform and Suppression of Free Speech (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/55.html)

University of Alabama: Attempt to Limit Freedom of Speech and Right to Petition (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/653.html)

If that isn't relevant I don't know what is, and if these incidents don't stop you just might see me engage in some civil disobedience of my own.

Hah, made you work. :)

Anyway it's funny how you are incensed by actions on a campus by not by the same actions done by your own government.

Violent insurrection is your words and I just used them in the “context of revolution”. My original words were: I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end. Which you interpreted as “violent insurrection.” That’s when I complained about you “twisting words.” Then Excon picked-up on your lead and said, “violent revolution.” Then you came back with, “armed revolution.”
So what's your point? That you condone only revolution without violence? Has there ever been a revolution that didn't depend on violence or the threat of violence? The American Revolution sure did.

During revolution (Which was my premise) there is no legal authoritySure there is. The existing government is the legal authority, at least until it's overthrown. After that, the new government assumes legal jurisdiction and responsibility.

(there is no consent of the governed)
"The governed" is not a monolithic entity. Some consent to be ruled by one side, some by the other, some consent to neither, and no party to the conflict has the consent of all.

all political connection is dissolved between two parties. There is no immorality in that act alone.
In a war, there's always plenty of immorality to go around, I'm sure.

I'm sorry, but your argument that nonviolent civil disobedience is morally inferior to revolution as a means to redress of grievances is preposterous. Give it up.

Hah, made you work. :)

Anyway it's funny how you are incensed by actions on a campus by not by the same actions done by your own government.

You really don't have a clue do you?

You really don't have a clue do you?More than you know. Now get back to screaming 'get off my lawn' to those pesky kids. :)

Free speech is not only the personal right of individuals to have their say; it is also the right of the rest of us to hear them. Unfortunately, not everyone else thinks this way.

Many universities have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation; that's the wrong response, more speech -- not less – is what is needed.

DC and Speech,

You might find this amusing and interesting: Digg - Pitzer Student Creates 'Masculinist Coalition' (http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Pitzer_Student_Creates_Masculinist_Coalition)
The link at the top takes you to their edict.

Now all we need is a Male Studies degree program in all of our universities. Someone has already come up with a curriculum (http://www.thatwasfunny.com/a-new-degree-in-male-studies/419).

Now all we need is a Male Studies degree program in all of our universities. Someone has already come up with a curriculum (http://www.thatwasfunny.com/a-new-degree-in-male-studies/419).
Oh well, I didn’t get a degree in Male Arts either.:p

Has there ever been a revolution that didn't depend on violence or the threat of violence?

Think of Gandhi. The reason democracy is so firmly entrenched in India, is because of Gandhi's legacy of non-voilent resistance, while the Dalai Lama is a huge embarrassment to the Chinese government.

Just a thought ;)

Oops, just noticed I've jumped in at the end of a long conversation...