Pros And Cons Of Civil Disobedience

Non violent civil disobedience is an act of protest where individuals refuse to comply with a particular law or regulation to express their opposition to it without resorting to violence. While civil disobedience may involve various degrees of non-compliance, it typically aims to challenge and change laws or policies that are perceived as unjust. This method of protest has been used throughout history by various civil rights movements, including those advocating for women's suffrage, racial equality, and LGBTQ+ rights, among others. Michele Moody-Adams is right in her assertion that non-violent civil disobedience perfectly embodies the spirit of compromise.
One of her arguments is that non-violent civil disobedience is an act of compromise

One potential problem with civil disobedience is that it can lead to a breakdown of the rule of law. If individuals or groups are allowed to disobey the law with impunity, it can erode public confidence in the legal system and create a more chaotic culture. Furthermore, some detractors view civil disobedience as an elitist strategy that only benefits those with the resources and social capital to engage in it. This can lead to a situation where the most marginalized members of society are excluded from the political process leading to a “tyranny of the

Candice Delmas defends the use of uncivil disobedience, which involves breaking the law in a way that is “disruptive, confrontational, and potentially violent.” (Delmas 19) Delmas argues that uncivil disobedience is justified in situations where the law is unjust, oppressive, or illegitimate, and where other forms of resistance have failed to bring about change. She also emphasizes the importance of accountability and responsibility in engaging in uncivil disobedience, and argues that those who engage in it must be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. I am not arguing that violent civil disobedience may be justified in times when it is absolutely necessary. Rebellion is after all what led to the creation of the United States. However, this simply could not embody the “spirit of compromise” because by acting violently one is asserting that compromise is off the table and what the actor wants is more important than what the effected party wants. Violent civil disobedience is an act of desperation that is sometimes necessary but could not fall under the compromise