In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

First of all, I want to begin by setting up my standard of proof. I do not have to show that in every instance civil disobedience or the violations of laws are morally justified, merely that in democratic societies some scenarios can reasonably emerge where Civil Disobedience is a necessary tool to point out injustice and move individuals to action. 1) Democracy is a system of government in which majority will can at times adversely and even systematically limit the rights of minorities. Voting rights or abilities to be part of the system of control is within this realm Protection of the minority or even the majorities perception of an injustice against a minority are not inherent in democracy not even a constitutional one. A large majority can make amendments to the constitution to explicitly deny a target group its basic rights to do things such as voting. In fact, in American history this has happened quite frequently and without just recompensation or righting of wrongs. I will give a brief overview of those groups historically or currently unable to vote or participate in the democratic system. For the better part of the later 19th century and even into the 21st anyone who believed or practiced polygamy or (until 189) was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Mormons) was denied the total right to vote. Literacy tests were a common thread throughout the 21st century. We all know the sordid history of denying blacks and women the right to vote. Those living in Washington D.C pay taxes and are citizens and yet for most of our history have not had any real vote on matters of congress affecting their lives. Those under the age of 18 are not able to have any voice or vote. Felons are often not reinstated in their ability to vote. Non citizens living in the country legally and subjected to the nations rules are given no voting recourse for the laws that shape their lives. We can develop countless threads and examples from the United States alone in which we can see individual groups do not have a say in developing the laws to which they are later bound. The con therefore makes a major fallicious assumption when he suggests that everyone has a legislative recourse in our system. Moreover, 2) On a practical level our system often means that injustice perpetuates unless dramatic attention is brought to issues Because we have a two party democratic system in the United States, social issues that are unpopular to touch or controversial can often be pushed under the carpet or stifled with a gag rule. Note the 50+ year consensus (1789-1845) on ignoring the issue of slavery in congress, or the utter lack of civil rights oversight for nearly a century. We elect leaders from a two party selection and therefore as voters have little to no control over the process. Moreover, most of our legislatures are bought and controlled by interests that often do not want causes of injustice to be brought to light. 1+2 Summary and extension= There are individuals in society and issues in society that do not have legislative recourse or avenues of change. This can be systemic or accidentally built into a two party system, but the result of this is that many times individuals need other avenues of recourse. 3) Civil Disobedience is philosophically just and works only when used for just causes Civil disobedience is not the utter negation of the legal system as side con suggests. Instead, with Civil Disobedience a group or an individual is intentionally bearing the consequence of a violation of the law in order to show that such a law is in their eyes injust. These individuals are not therefore in any way eroding the notion of Justice or the legitimacy of the system of laws. They are accepting all punishments associated with their violation of a law but deciding that the moral cost to their own sense of self by obeying the law outweighs the cost of breaking a law. It is important to note that this is the same calculus we all make whenever we consciously break any law. We know what the consequences of violation are, and weigh those consequences with our reasons to break the law. We are all making a decision every moment of the day which law we should honor or ignore. Having a large group of people breaking the law for a social purpose is thus not more erosive to the legitimacy of the system than violations of the law for any reason. A contingency which or legal system is expressly in place to deal with. Thus, unlike what con suggests we are unlikely to have massive Disobedience movements formed over truly trivial causes because most individuals value the notion of being kept out of jail and therefore will not accept jail time unless there is a widespread belief that their actions have some ultimate impact and actually push forward their cause. It is only in the limited cases where massive arrests actually either muck up a system ( in the case of the draft) or bring broad sympathy to a movement ( Civil-rights) where broad based campaigns of Disobedience actually have a chance of being sustained. Civil Disobedience can only be utilized and maintained thus when both those inside the movement feel their jail time and punishment is a worthwhile sacrifice and when this impact can be imparted on other. I want to spend the bulk of the rest of my argument responding to most substantive point on the cons argument. The idea that other avenues exist rather than Civil Disobedience. It is here that I think side con really destroys its own position irrevocably. Lets look at the means that are suggested. 1) Legislation ( Summary of points 3 and 4 on cons list)- I have already shown why many individuals with a legitimate interest in the laws that effect them can not actually impact their legislature. Many have no vote. Moreover, many issues are never going to gain legislative traction in the normal course of events no matter how strong the moral cause. 2) Litigation- Here comes the big fault line in pros arguments. Can anyone with a brief knowledge of American constitutional law tell me what is necessary for a legal case to change constitutional precedent? That's right, you actually need someone to be arrested in violation of a law or to have some claim to actual direct harms the law inflicted. Suing the offending party as Con suggests does nothing to make a change within the court, in fact in America breaking the law is generally what is required. That is why so many of the civil rights related protests ended up as court cases. Plessy V. Fergeson the dubious case that set the precedent of seperate but equal was the case of an individual who practiced civil disobedience and voluntarily broke the laws of segregation to bring forth a test case. Civil disobedience is a neccesary compliment to legal action in most modern democratic systems including our own. 3) Get out on the streets- Here's the other obvious flaw in cons alternatives. arguments. Throughout American and other country history, groups have been explicitly denied their ability to express their free speech or to get their ideas out. In germany it is illegal to speak out with pro-neo nazi ideas for instance. If individuals in these groups are not allowed to get out and speak but do anyways...guess what they have committed. That's right, Civil Disobedience. Thus, the avenue of parades rallys or demonstrations are often tools of civil disobedience rather than alternatives. 4) Media- The problem here is that the media is often in the pocket of the same interests that keep news stories down. The only thing that can often crack the facade of our mainstream media is something large scale and unprecedented. Widespread arrests can do that while routine rallys of even hundreds of thousands of people get scant attention. Rosa Parks arrest and other disobedient actions make stories no media can deny coverage. The bottom line is that the other avenues that side con suggests