...Im curious.

What would it take for *you* to actually break the law for a political reason.   Where would you draw the line about whether it was morally or ethically justified to use illegal or civilly disobedient methods to enact changes in your societal conditions?  Or prevent acts that you felt wrong?

Is there anything you would if given the opportunity - revolt about?

Are there any events in the past 20 or 30 years or so that you'd wished that you *had* participated in, but hadnt - and if so - why ?

But if you really *want* to bug Me and are still trying because I didnt put the damm contact field in properly....

Thegamefinisher@yahoo.co.uk

I refused to pay Poll tax in the 90's and did a lot of work on Travellers rights, which seemed to involve being unpopular with the police on a regular basis, and I've worked with Young People on the streets for the best part of 20 years, so seeing/challenging injustice almost becomes the norm.

in fact most of my adult/professional life seems to have involved challenging those in authority- or supporting people who are.

However, I don't think breaking the law would help in any situation. Refusing the pay the poll tax did nothing in the end (frankly I think council tax is just as bad - protesting one form of taxation just means another form is created which is designed to get the same amount of money from the same people, essentially they rebrand the tax...). Blowing things up is a way to get noticed but it gets you noticed for all the wrong reasons and tends to lead to your particular 'cause' being even more disenfranchised. Protesting (peacefully) is still legal (as far as I am aware) so I will do that and I suppose if it were made illegal then I would still do it... but that is all.

Governments are only capable of doing two things effectively against any 'threat' banning it and taxing it and the former is only effective if they bother to enforce it. It is illegal for us to leave our dog's crap in the street. However, there is no effective way for that law to be enforced. Unless there were a policeman on every street corner handing out fines for this (and other crimes like littering, drinking alcohol in the street, loitering, vandalism etc) then we are unlikely to get caught for it if we did leave it lying around. Now, we pick it up because we are 'nice people' who like to live in a clean street with no dog shit in it. However, there are many who are not so nice and who leave it. I don't see them getting fined for it. Ok, these are minor issues but they demonstrate the extent to which laws can be enforced - they can only charge you if they catch you and have the evidence.

But I digress... the point I am making is that governments pay no attention to issues unless there is an election due and even then only if the issue matches thier own agenda.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God...

Ruins of Empire

1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester

I wouldn't say 'most', I would say 'some' and they are generally the people who would do it regardless of the law. If the law has no power behind it then those who would follow it anyway will still do what they always have done and those who were causing the problem in the first place will likewise continue as they always have. In this case, the slow change in attitude will not happen because everyone is blithely unaware of the law. Its the same with the mobile phone in cars law. That has been in force for a while now and I still see people blithely using phones in disregard of the law and their own personal safety.

My opinion of this is that governments cannot create changes on the scale or the extent that they claim to be able to. Ok, you may be right about changing attitudes over the course of time but most governments seem to spend half of their time apologising for the previous incumbents and the other half creating things for the next government to apologise for. Most serious change does not happen for a number of years.

On the one hand, stability is good. I certainly do not want to be in a country where the government can change in an instant and, suddenly, certain things are now illegal with no recourse for protest. However, on the other hand I do wonder at how pedestrial our system seems to be.

Yes, an issue that they personally wanted dealt with. The whole discussion about the causes of the Iraq war and why we got involved has been done to death but it was largely motivated on issues that were far from idealistic and, from the general outcry, was instigated despite the wishes of a significantly vocal part of the population.

The problem in my mind is that there really is not an ideal system for large populations. Democracy, as we have seen in numerous countries, falls apart and is bogged down in paperwork when you get a population too large and that is the best option we have at the present time. One politician, no matter how idealistic, cannot make the differences they want unless they get a lot of clout behind them and that clout usually involves the majority of the government having the same ideals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God...

Ruins of Empire

1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester