Argument Against Civil Disobedience

526 Words2 Pages

Civil disobedience is a threat to our free society as one small example can snowball into a much larger issue within our society. Rosa Parks used civil disobedience in a very effective way but a bank robber could use civil disobedience to explain that he was gaining rights for the poor, much like Rosa Parks did for the African American community. The problem here lies in where can you draw the line with civil disobedience. You could argue that a good argument is needed to justify someone breaking a law, but any argument can be fabricated to expose only the good details that aid there side of the argument. Civil disobedience could even end up in murder where a person decides it is in the best interest of the community to eliminate a person preventing them from doing damage. However, they broke the law by These protesters feel that they are making a difference by delegitimizing the president instead of uniting behind him. These protesters are burning and destroying property around these large cities causing nothing but damage to there own local communities helping nobody in the long run. If anything there actions qualify as civil disobedience because they are causing destruction in the cities and believe they are helping their cause of trying to revolt under a President Trump. Peacefully protesting is perfectly legal and often times promoted, but what these people are doing is classified as civil disobedience and is destroying our cities and tearing our country apart. These protesters should be held accountable and have the correct laws and actions taken to prevent any more destruction of the cities. Following the laws and promoting a cause that you feel is important by peacefully protesting is perfectly acceptable. One small act of disobedience can snowball into much larger acts that lead to revolts in countries and leave whole countries in anarchy and

Open Document