Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice

My case is simple: Failure to comply with the law is immoral. Justification: When I become a citizen of a country, I enter into a social contract. The government promises to protect my safety, and in return, I promise to obey the laws of the government. Of course, at some point, the government will break its side of the deal. For example, the fact that the even after the abolition of slavery, racism was allowed in government policies. This however does not justify one in breaking their part of the contract. Two wrongs do not make a right. You have two options. The first is to fight the law peacefully, and legally. You do not violate your contract, and you point out the government is violating theirs. The other option is to leave the country, and end the contract, and enter into a contract with a better government. Rebuttals: "For my first point is that civil disobedience is a beneficial behavior in bringing about stability to a society. I would like to point out a few examples such as the Women's Suffrage movement from 1848 to 1920; it acquired the women's right to vote. " This is not civil disobedience, as they are not breaking laws. This is off topic. "In Germany 1982-1986, there was a non-violent protest against deployment of Pershing II and Cruise Missiles, 3000 people sat in front of Mutlangen a military base. These people blocked military traffic that goes in and out of the base. After the four year protest the INF Treaty was signed it regulated all land base intermediate range nuclear forces, it marked the end of the Cold War and led to the demise of the Warsaw Pact. " These people are violating their contract by breaking the law, and furthermore they disrupt order. Also, they are ignorant. The government, which has access to secret data can recognize the need to have cruise missiles. Disrupting this could easily lead to a national security crisis. "Governments have been improved by acts of civil disobedience like the examples I have just stated, this is important because if there is an unjust law or policy or an act that is in a government that the people feel need changing then a citizen can fight for what they believe in. And in democratic governments groups and individuals have utilized civil disobedience as a weapon in the fight for justice that has gained rights, created countries, changed social norms, and improved or saved millions lives. " I can do millions of legal things to deal with this. For example, the government is like a business, it wants my money, so it can do what it wants. If I organize a group that leaves the country, and thereby eliminates a source of income, I will bring about change. For example, the Pilgrims, Puritans, Catholics, and Quakers of England helped promote religious tolerance in that nation when they up and left to avoid persecution. Also, a peaceful protest, is totally legal and very effective, think the march on Washington, Million Mom March, et cetera. "My second point that democratic governments provide for and accommodate acts of civil disobedience I would like to use an example in the late 1960s. Two students John and Mary Beth Tinker in Des Moines Iowa were protesting against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. This was against the policies and rules of the public school; this is an act of civil disobedience. They were suspended until they returned to school without the armbands. The parents of the students filed a lawsuit; the case was a tied vote at the district court and was appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of John and Mary Beth Tinker and validation their civil disobedience by a 7-2 decision. " This action was not civil disobedience. They were not breaking any legitimate law. The rules against the armbands had no authority, and therefore, breaking them is not civil disobedience. "To my third and final point that civil disobedience brings immediate attention to an unjust law. If a person writes a letter or sends an E-mail to a senator it has to go through secretaries, then maybe to the senator then maybe bring attention to the problem then maybe the problem will be addressed then maybe to a bill then maybe a law. This method of trying to bring justice is not effective, nor efficient. However civil disobedience brings immediate attention to a problem or unjust law. It gets media coverage it gets people excited and care about the issue. That then puts pressure on representatives to quickly address the issue, to look at the problem and rethink what is the correct way. This will correct the unjust law quicker and make society that much better for its citizens. " A simple march is legal, and just as effective. Also, studies have shown that civil disobedience can alienate more moderate sympathizers with a cause who will view such actions as extremist. In conclusion, even when the government is unjust and immoral, we cannot act in an immoral manner ourselves. Two wrongs do not make a right.