Before one can definitely decide on a standing in an argument, he must understand what he is contemplating over. As said by John von Newman " There's no sense in being precise when you do not know what you're talking about". Therefore in all necessity, enough information in order to have a unique personal opinion that they might one day argue will be provided to every reader.
Civil disobedience can be defines as " the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peaceful disobeying it while accepting the consequences. for the sake of the layman, civil disobedience is breaking the law peacefully because you do not feel that it is right. To some this may seem like a given : obey instructions ( the law), They are for your own good! But is it …show more content…
If in fact the members of this free society have the freedom to obtain power in order to reach their own potential, then must we still continue to argue? Since all were given the freedom, then civil disobedience must then be tolerated. But the question is : When will the government have to take a stand in order to protect the people from self destruction? That is a question has variable answers I can agree that right know we are living in the most political and social freedom ever lived before. Regardless of that fact there are still some laws that are hindering the well being of many. Just because you are not negatively affected by something doesn't mean everyone else isn't. Then again, not everyone can be happy and life isn't a bed of roses, at least not for everyone.
I then dangerously come to the conclusion that affects a free society positively . It helps to make the society more manageable for everyone and it show the government what the effect of laws on the people. It also makes the people more aware of what is going on around them. In order for someone to protest they must have a reasonable extent of knowledge of the law(s) the wish to protest. Needless to say, many of us are guilty of not know what is happening in are government. If the people stay informed then they have the ability
Civil disobedience can be defines as " the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peaceful disobeying it while accepting the consequences. for the sake of the layman, civil disobedience is breaking the law peacefully because you do not feel that it is right. To some this may seem like a given : obey instructions ( the law), They are for your own good! But is it …show more content…
If in fact the members of this free society have the freedom to obtain power in order to reach their own potential, then must we still continue to argue? Since all were given the freedom, then civil disobedience must then be tolerated. But the question is : When will the government have to take a stand in order to protect the people from self destruction? That is a question has variable answers I can agree that right know we are living in the most political and social freedom ever lived before. Regardless of that fact there are still some laws that are hindering the well being of many. Just because you are not negatively affected by something doesn't mean everyone else isn't. Then again, not everyone can be happy and life isn't a bed of roses, at least not for everyone.
I then dangerously come to the conclusion that affects a free society positively . It helps to make the society more manageable for everyone and it show the government what the effect of laws on the people. It also makes the people more aware of what is going on around them. In order for someone to protest they must have a reasonable extent of knowledge of the law(s) the wish to protest. Needless to say, many of us are guilty of not know what is happening in are government. If the people stay informed then they have the ability