Civil Disobedience

[camille]

I thought we could discuss this in three parts.

Civil Disobedience (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html)


"Civil Disobedience" originated as a Concord Lyceum lecture delivered by Thoreau on January 26, 1848. It was published as "Resistance to Civil Government," in May of 1849, in Elizabeth Peabody's Aesthetic Papers, a short-lived periodical that never managed a second issue.

Thoreau.....from Part 1


But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? ? in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.


A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys,(5) and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts ? a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be

"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero we buried."(6)

Some have said that while 'Walden' can easily be applied today, that it is still easy for us to relate to the words and ideas, 'Civil Disobedience' is outdated and can be used only for historical reference.

[Krill]

It's pretty alive and admired among the general populous of the campus I go to. Quakers have had a history of it (especially when it comes to taxes).

[Wolf]

It's widespread and common today. I just wish it was stronger and more people had solidarity. They are, as he put it so verbosely, sheep that follow the leaders mindlessly. If there were more people with independent thought, we could resist almost anything by not following the rules.

[MuseedesBeauxArts]

Some have said that while 'Walden' can easily be applied today, that it is still easy for us to relate to the words and ideas, 'Civil Disobedience' is outdated and can be used only for historical reference.

Could you explain why people say this? I'm curious to understand the argument.

[immortalmack]

It's pretty alive and admired among the general populous of the campus I go to. Quakers have had a history of it (especially when it comes to taxes).
Krill are you a traveler?

[immortalmack]

I thought we could discuss this in three parts.

Civil Disobedience (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html)



Thoreau.....from Part 1





Some have said that while 'Walden' can easily be applied today, that it is still easy for us to relate to the words and ideas, 'Civil Disobedience' is outdated and can be used only for historical reference.

I think it's very much applicable but in todays world it's either we all do it at thesame time in the open or none do it

[Krill]

Krill are you a traveler?

:offtopic:

Not currently, though one day I'd love to get up and leave for no where in particular for a while (perhaps for academic leave or something if I become a Professor, though I'm not sure how that works).

[camille]

Could you explain why people say this? I'm curious to understand the argument.
I disagree that it isn't applicable today but I'll wing the other side for a minute.

During the time he gave this speech there was still open territory, places a man could go to live in solitude. The west wasn't fully occupied. There were still ways a man could support himself without interference from the government. Today, those places are nonexistent. Perhaps they mean that we missed our opportunity during his time...that the hold the government has on us is too strong to be revolted against.

I think another point is that most of us are not revolutionaries. We do not wade through the muck, fighting for what we believe in. We accept limited, or fake freedom in exchange for an easy secure life. We don't rage against the machine. We do a lot of talk and little action, moreso today than in his year.

[Wolf]

I definitely feel that. There's nowhere we can go that the government or someone isn't there to force you to follow their rules, pay their taxes, etc. There are few places left where you could be truly self-sufficient, because every scrap of land is owned by someone and you must pay to have it for the rest of your life.

I have long felt I was a slave to a machine I didn't want to be involved in...

[camille]

Thoreau felt that if the government was unjust then the only place for a just man was in prison. But how many of us are willing to give up our limited freedom to make a point? Would you refuse to pay your taxes and spend years in prison (not like people who avoid paying their taxes to scam the government out of greed and falsely claim they are standing up against an unfair system but a true revoluntionary)?

[Geoff]

Thoreau felt that if the government was unjust then the only place for a just man was in prison. But how many of us are willing to give up our limited freedom to make a point? Would you refuse to pay your taxes and spend years in prison (not like people who avoid paying their taxes to scam the government out of greed and falsely claim they are standing up against an unfair system but a true revoluntionary)?

I wouldnt, because I actually believe in the idea of govt and taxation. I know it is misguided at times, but anarchy is no solution. I dont mind paying a fair share of my income to support others, so that they support me.

If it was genuinely unjust, corrupt and broken... I might. But I think I'd be more likely to either leave, or bring it down from within.

-Geoff

[Wolf]

Thoreau felt that if the government was unjust then the only place for a just man was in prison. But how many of us are willing to give up our limited freedom to make a point? Would you refuse to pay your taxes and spend years in prison (not like people who avoid paying their taxes to scam the government out of greed and falsely claim they are standing up against an unfair system but a true revoluntionary)?
One doesn't have the option of protesting within the system. You cannot avoid paying taxes and work in this country, you cannot own property and avoid paying taxes. If you do such things, they will take your property. But, they cannot arrest you for failure to pay taxes in the US, so, since you can't go to prison for it, you cannot avoid them. There's no way to make a statement when all they'll ever do is take everything you own, then leave you hopelessly without anything you need to survive and try to get the money for it out of you if you ever try to recover your life through working.

Basically, you'll always be a nameless, faceless, slave to the system. Nobody will realize you exist or that you oppose the system, because all you can be is a homeless person if you even try.

[Avengardh]

It happens in the type of environments where the people aren't really being listened to, it is more of a necessity then.

[camille]

One doesn't have the option of protesting within the system. You cannot avoid paying taxes and work in this country, you cannot own property and avoid paying taxes. If you do such things, they will take your property. But, they cannot arrest you for failure to pay taxes in the US, so, since you can't go to prison for it, you cannot avoid them. There's no way to make a statement when all they'll ever do is take everything you own, then leave you hopelessly without anything you need to survive and try to get the money for it out of you if you ever try to recover your life through working.

Basically, you'll always be a nameless, faceless, slave to the system. Nobody will realize you exist or that you oppose the system, because all you can be is a homeless person if you even try.


My understanding is that the government doesn't have the time or money to launch investigations and prosecute every person it thinks committed fraud so they only investigate the high profile or the cases with the clearest evidence. Civil tax proceedings are more common and generally don't result in prison time but the government does file criminal charges against a few thousand every year.

To prove that you have committed fraud against the government, the investigation has to conclude that you knew the tax code and willfully disregarded it. Sometimes people do step up and claim they don't believe they owe the government anything.....they don't HAVE to pay taxes. These protesters are still prosecuted.

[Wolf]

There's no debtor prison. Nobody goes to jail for failing to pay their taxes... They just get a record and the revenuers eventually decide to "collect" all they can get out of you...

It's not fair, but that's how it rolls, they won't put you in prison for it because that was one of the founding principles of the US - they were opposed to taxation without representation and things like debtor prison for failure to pay whatever. It's like failing to pay a bill or rent, they cannot arrest you and throw you in prison for it. The same applies to taxes.

[charred_heart]

It happens in the type of environments where the people aren't really being listened to, it is more of a necessity then.yeah...

[Geoff]

My understanding is that the government doesn't have the time or money to launch investigations and prosecute every person it thinks committed fraud so they only investigate the high profile or the cases with the clearest evidence. Civil tax proceedings are more common and generally don't result in prison time but the government does file criminal charges against a few thousand every year.

To prove that you have committed fraud against the government, the investigation has to conclude that you knew the tax code and willfully disregarded it. Sometimes people do step up and claim they don't believe they owe the government anything.....they don't HAVE to pay taxes. These protesters are still prosecuted.

Ah! My home subject. Or at least, taxes is, not fraud, haha.

Failure to pay is a debtor problem, and would result in bankruptcy but not usually a prison sentence.

Tax avoidance is legal but frowned upon (UK & US). Largely, it "works" and is then legislated against in terms of changes to the rules to prevent it working. I am often active in the area of legal tax avoidance and mitigation.

Tax evasion is illegal. People are prosecuted for this and locked up. Fraud or negligence would both potentially be within this area. So someone who wants to protest and be locked up would simply have to wilfully misrepresent their income or gains.

(Internal Revenue Code section 7201[13]:

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.)

The law in the UK is much the same (failure to pay is a bankruptcy problem, avoidance is a civil issue which if found ineffective will give rise to interest and sometimes monetary penalties, evasion is a criminal offence which is rightly prosecuted and often results in a prison terms.)

-Geoff

[camille]

still in part 1.....




There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.

Are our votes cheap? There is no assurance that the candidate you vote for will vote with your conscience in mind. I hated the MTVs Rock the Vote campaign. We encourage people to vote who do not know about the issues at hand. Of course we want everyone to exercise their right to vote but when are they educated on the issues/candidates? We expect them to do the research themselves, decipher biased information, propaganda, and make an intelligent vote. And many vote based on the candidates' opinions about moral issues. I think that is what Thoreau was talking about. The government should decide which issues demand expediency and what we have now is a government attempting complete control.