Civil Disobedience Debate Essay

892 Words2 Pages

Debate paper
Civil disobedience in a democratic society is morally justified. Which means breaking the laws of the nation to be able to persuade the public. Civil disobedience has been around since the biblical times. Democracy is a form of government that is by the people and for the people. Although Democracy is a system of government that the people elect government officials to speak and make decisions for the people.
Throughout history there has been many incidences that civil disobedience has occurred. From the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights Movement. With these non violent demonstrations people had more say in the government creating communication, so better decisions could be made. During the Boston Tea Party the American colonies …show more content…

There is no reason why we should disagree to the point to not abide the law when we the people elected the officials. The people need to listen to rules and laws because they are keeping the people safe and the government needs support, so it can be successful in different circumstances such as war. The soldiers need full support during war time from their country and the government can not get distracted from the people and then end up fighting two wars. This then would discourage the soldiers for fighting and then therefore morale may be lowered and the government could be destabilized. They say that the act of breaking the law is nonviolent which is false it's only pushing to break more laws and become violent.
Since the people elect the government officials, why don't the officials listen to what the people want? If a democratic society doesn't listen to the people, the people have a right to form petitions. Petitions are a written request that appeal to authority for a specific case. The people also need to backup the government in times of need. If the United States of America goes into war with none of the nations people behind them,

Open Document