warranted civil disobedience

An immoral or unjust law is any regulation which is ethically questionable that is set by a government which seeks to demean an individual or group of citizens. So, I am forced to agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law as it does not uplift or support the growth or development of a people. In situations such as slavery, apartheid in South Africa where unjust laws ruled supreme and the lack of government consideration were warranted occasions for civil disobedience. As all other avenues failed and civil disobedience which stresses non-violence and seeks not to overthrow the government but specific issues of concerns was the next best option. Others might say if the end justifies as if everyone broke a law that they thought to be unjust then there would be civil unrest and lawlessness but what would be the situation if there was no civil disobedience by Rosa Parks, women not able to vote, factory workers being paid unfair wages and in unsafe environments, or the Indians campaign for independence against the British these are all events that are engraved in history that has brought about necessary changes for the progress of our civilized society. So yes the ends does justifies the means as all our lives have been affected in great ways as if it wasn’t for civil disobedience I would not be doing an online course and learning about phenomenal ideas and preparing to positively impact society.

Mills or Marx

I have always been fascinated by Marx’s work and this is no different as he does have a point that if society is going to be controlled by the elite group of individuals because of their financial advantage then we are going to need government intervention to deter unfair practices. As we are no strangers to huge companies e.g. oil or healthcare that corner the market and forces us to pay unheard of prices for a necessary commodity. One might say you have a choice by not buying the merchandise but when it is a necessity and not a luxury item it is hard to be free. This is when government intervention is desperately needed
However, Mills does have a point that as long as you are able to be you and not harm others and there is no governing force of any kind saying that you have to live this way then you are truly free. For this to happen we would have to live in a perfect world which we don’t as there is always some form of coercion happening in society e.g. we have no control when the government raises taxes in order to fix a deficit caused by another situation that we had no vote say in. So this is where Mills falls short as we are never truly free to be without some type of legislation being passed that affects our daily life directly.

Anarchist

People are just humans who struggle with the inner natural instincts; some do a better job of obtaining a balance between selfishness and goodness. Therefore I would have to agree with Locke who argues that government is legitimate as long as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights. These natural rights are what differentiate us from other animals and they should be protected regardless of the authority given to government. It would be unfair to group everyone as selfish as Hobbes does and that we are all in need of strict rules to keep us in line. Not all rules that we live by are fair to human development such is the case in most communist societies where individuals are limited to do certain things just to satisfy the governments selfish needs of power and greed. So why should people live under rulers who need help restricting their own selfish needs.