Summary Of The Case Against Civil Disobedience

"Civil Disobedience, I shall argue, is an unsuccessful attempt to combine, on the level of principle, revolutions and conventional political action" The anonymous author of "The Case Against Civil Disobedience" asserts that peaceful protesting does not play a significant role in reforming political norms. His words often ring true in protests. In many instances of Civil Disobedience, the "peaceful" protests become dangerously violent. They tend to cause more tension and discourse than they cause change. Protests lead to increased divisions between the two viewpoints, causing support for current implication to solidify out of fear of change. Therefore, Civil Disobedience negatively impacts a free society because it inhibits political change by instigating violence and sensing support for reform. Primarily, peaceful protests often end in violence, endangering the public who may not be involved in the movement. Though protests may begin without violence, the often resort to brutality when tensions increase. Peaceful protests often begin as

If people are too scared of change to advocate for the country's improvement, the government will never change for the better. The United States government is imperfect, and people must work to reform it without Civil Disobedience. The act of protesting causes strife and fear, but it does nothing to change a country's laws. Ultimately, people must convince the public to vote for governmental change by explaining their viewpoints rather than asserting them onto the public by rioting. Protests, even peaceful ones, attempt to force a mob's beliefs onto another group. This method only causes strife. Thus, citizens must present their beliefs concerning governmental reform without forcing their ideas onto the public in order to successfully create a more perfect