OCR Text |
Show ; Should Law Be Resisted? Editor: I would like to comment on the continuing controversy on civil disobedience. dis-obedience. The idea of civil disobedience diso-bedience is deeply rooted in our tradition from Jefferson and Thomas Thom-as Paine to Thoreau and John Brown. We must never forget that at extremely critical times and on extremely critical issues the democratic demo-cratic process has failed. Witness the American Revolution and the Civil War as two notable examples. When the democratic process has failed us we have not been averse to seeking our redress in other forms. Remember Washington was not playing tiddly winks with Corn-wallis. Corn-wallis. When Jefferson and his cohorts co-horts couldn't, after years of petitioning, peti-tioning, achieve redress they sought results through force of arms. Why Support Corruption? The current notion of civil disobedience diso-bedience is merely the sit-in or the stand-in, i.e., the passive form of resistance. What would have happened hap-pened if Washington had merely sat in front of General Gage's door? Exactly nothing. It is not an easy thing to say but for me and for I believe many others oth-ers our government and indeed our whole institutional framework is involved in-volved in courses of action that are as patently unjust as anything any government has ever done. In the name of national security America has bombed, gutted and destroyed a small Asian nation, staged CIA sponsored coups in Iran and Guata-mala Guata-mala and a dozen other places simply sim-ply because these nations chose to take issue with the western world, have established a military industrial indus-trial complex that controls and dominates the lives of many millions mil-lions of Americans, elects its own congressmen, and continues to manage man-age foreign policy in order to fill its own insatiable need to sell its hardware both at home and abroad. In the name of a holy crusade against communism we will support any dictator, any police state, any facist tyranny that calls itself anti-communist. anti-communist. Witness Thailand and Greece. Large corporations continue con-tinue to play with the American individual in-dividual like pawns in their stupid chess game. The Only Way Left The American political system has proven itself bankrupt in the face of these challenges. Our political candidates continue to look like so many wooden puppets of the military mili-tary superstructure, each one with only a changed facial expression. Democracy; or thc real chance to effect political change belongs to those who can afford it. No matter who is elected the system continues to operate the same as always. If civil disobedience refers to all means of disruption outside the established framework then what we need, it seems to me, is more disobedience. But I have come to realize that you cannot throw off a corrupt tyranny by merely getting yourself thrown into its jails. Richard Sherlock Editor : Assistant Professor T. M. Reed presented a paper in a Great Issues Forum last quarter on the subject of "Morality, Authority and Responsibility." Respon-sibility." In his paper he seemed to sanction civil disobedience. His paper was criticized by Peter Appleby, assistant professor of philosophy, phi-losophy, David Bennett, associate professor of philosophy and Richard Hanson, associate professor of philosophy. No Debate These critics said that Dr. Reed had merely set up obviously flimsy arguments and then had attempted to destroy them to support his own particular view. They seemed to feel that Dr. Reed had evaded the real issues in his discussion of authority. au-thority. In an editorial letter printed in the Jan. 30 Chronicle, I expressed my belief that civil disobedience is not justified. In two subsequent letters let-ters to the editor, Dr. Reed continued con-tinued to ignore the question by simply stating his own opinion and expecting students at the University to believe him. It is curious that one so well qualified to debate civil disobedience consistently refuses to do so. Not Justified Today Of less consequence were the arguments ar-guments proposed by Dr. Richard D. Young. It is true that the people have the right to abolish or alter their form of government when that government becomes destructive of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. happi-ness. But if Mr. Young had taken the trouble to read a few sentences in the Declaration of Independence he would have benefited. The United States declared independence only when it was evident that they were under an absolute despotism. Are we in America today living under such a completely totalitarian government that it is our duty to disobey law? Surely not. Richard Merrill |