Civil disobedience is the public, conscientious, active breach of the law to bring about a change in law or public policy (The Archive). The framers of the Constitution understood that even a free and democratic society is not perfect on its own, and the only way to amend the problems is to allow for the people to speak out against any transgressions. Regrettably, imperfections are rooted deep in every single ruling institution. There are many examples in history in which these imperfections grow until they begin to undermine a free society. The only way to rid ourselves of these injustices is to challenge the government when it does not represent the people. Peaceful resistance is a proven and effective way of keeping a free society free.
…show more content…
People naturally have philosophical differences, and the only way to make everybody fall under a uniform ideology would be to create a fascist state in which people’s rights are only what their administration tells them. In other words, the government would be the institution that has rights and not the people. There is a common misconception that both individuals and states have rights in a free society. However, this is false; it is only individuals who have rights while the state only has the power that the citizens give it. This distinction is important to make, because, in a free society, power can not be considered legitimate unless there is consent of the governed. If the state commits any act that violates the rights of the individual, the citizens not only have a right but a duty to resist. Peaceful resistance by the people adds another facet of the checks and balances system. It is the job of the individual to peacefully take action and correct the government (Thoreau, …show more content…
However, history has shown that unacceptable propositions lose on their own when they are left open to debate. Allowing for peaceful resistance by groups that are considered controversial or overtly offensive is the most compelling way for a free society to defeat an inferior ideology. Instituting policing standards on people for believing in what the state deems wrong will inevitably lead a once free society down the primrose path to destruction. Governments will use one incident of harmful speech to set a precedent that will take away the rights of any individual who opposes any institution or policy in place. Once this happens, there will no longer be a peaceful resistance by citizens, but an armed revolution to take back what they feel is rightfully theirs. Allowing hateful organizations such as the KKK to speak freely will enable the general public to mock, derail, and ultimately prevent the possibility of having them fester below the surface manifesting as a problem later. The aforementioned solution should not be limited to hate groups, because even mainstream movements will resort to violence if they are suppressed. One famous example that was considered radical in its day would be the Sons of Liberty in Colonial America. Today, we consider the beliefs of this group to be fundamental to the western
People naturally have philosophical differences, and the only way to make everybody fall under a uniform ideology would be to create a fascist state in which people’s rights are only what their administration tells them. In other words, the government would be the institution that has rights and not the people. There is a common misconception that both individuals and states have rights in a free society. However, this is false; it is only individuals who have rights while the state only has the power that the citizens give it. This distinction is important to make, because, in a free society, power can not be considered legitimate unless there is consent of the governed. If the state commits any act that violates the rights of the individual, the citizens not only have a right but a duty to resist. Peaceful resistance by the people adds another facet of the checks and balances system. It is the job of the individual to peacefully take action and correct the government (Thoreau, …show more content…
However, history has shown that unacceptable propositions lose on their own when they are left open to debate. Allowing for peaceful resistance by groups that are considered controversial or overtly offensive is the most compelling way for a free society to defeat an inferior ideology. Instituting policing standards on people for believing in what the state deems wrong will inevitably lead a once free society down the primrose path to destruction. Governments will use one incident of harmful speech to set a precedent that will take away the rights of any individual who opposes any institution or policy in place. Once this happens, there will no longer be a peaceful resistance by citizens, but an armed revolution to take back what they feel is rightfully theirs. Allowing hateful organizations such as the KKK to speak freely will enable the general public to mock, derail, and ultimately prevent the possibility of having them fester below the surface manifesting as a problem later. The aforementioned solution should not be limited to hate groups, because even mainstream movements will resort to violence if they are suppressed. One famous example that was considered radical in its day would be the Sons of Liberty in Colonial America. Today, we consider the beliefs of this group to be fundamental to the western