by Hyperion » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:40 pm
Civil disobedience != No government.
There will always be an authority actor, whether talking about a parent over a child, or a landlord over a tenant, or a agent of peace over a rapist. Government may look drastically different, but it never really goes away. Somalia doesn't have a formal government in many regions, but there are still warlords. In anarchist Spain there was no formal government, but if you tattled to the fascists the commune executed you. Etc., etc.
(This has been said numerous times in threads where the definition of 'anarchism' has been debated. Originally in Enlightenment vernacular anarchism implied direct democracy, not an end to government)
Civil disobedience has always spurred innovation and reform in government better than legal protests. Labor unions, civil rights, and drug legalization are all testaments to this fact. If a law is unjust and you're willing to take the risk, don't follow it. You have no ethical obligation. Others may view you as wrong (and if you believe in objectivity you might very well be wrong), but passively letting the government or even business bully you isn't necessary.
Not a single person on this forum, to my knowledge, disagrees with the sentiment that middle class Americans bear the pains of a government that cares more for the wealthy. There's disagreements over who benefits a little bit more (old vs rich, families vs singles, etc.), but it's all secondary to the difference between super-wealthy and everyone else.
Last edited by
Hyperion on Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:49 pm, edited 5 times in total.