Theory of Civil Disobedience

A deliberate, non-violent, public act of breaking the law by a citizen who still believes in the legal system's principles.

The reason for civil disobedience arises in a democracy where individuals accept the law's basic legitimacy, but disagree with specific laws.

A well-defined framework that distinguishes between different types of opposition to authority and clarifies when civil disobedience in a democratic system is justified.

Attempting to change a law through legitimate channels, like petitioning the government, before resorting to civil disobedience.

A citizen's understanding that others might also participate in a civil disobedience movement, implying a shared commitment to the cause and acceptance of potential consequences.

Taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions by accepting potential punishment for engaging in civil disobedience.

Injustice in one part of the world threatens justice everywhere, as injustices are connected.

A crucial step before any civil disobedience action, involving self-reflection and training in non-violence techniques.

A movement that aimed to end segregation and achieve racial equality through nonviolent protest.

A movement that arose in response to police brutality and systemic racism against Black people.

The practice of aiming to achieve social justice by recognizing and addressing the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression.

A set of specific, measurable objectives that guide the actions and outcomes of a movement.

The distribution of power within a movement, with one individual or group at the top directing actions.

The belief that fighting for racial equality is a shared responsibility of all Americans, as it's an essential part of national identity.

The perception that racial bias within the criminal justice system primarily impacts Black people, highlighting the specific discriminatory experiences of a particular racial group.

A situation where individuals are free and equal, governed by natural law that dictates moral behavior and respect for each other's rights.

The law of nature dictates that everyone has the right to protect themselves and their property. Individuals have the power to punish those who violate natural law.

A state of conflict that arises when one individual unjustly attempts to enslave another. The victim is justified in using any means to defend themselves.

A person's right to own property arises from mixing their labor with natural resources. Property rights are limited by the availability of resources and the need to use them efficiently.

The sovereign, representing the collective will of the people, is not bound by the social contract because they are its product. They are responsible for upholding order and protecting the rights of the people.

The social contract is driven by fear of death and the desire for self-preservation. Individuals agree to surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for protection and stability.

Even if a sovereign acts unjustly, subjects cannot revolt because it disrupts social stability and undermines the very foundation of the government. There is no room for civil disobedience.

Individuals in a state of nature lack the ability to see the long-term consequences of their actions. This contributes to conflict and the need for a sovereign authority.

The concept that social agreements, often presented as equal and just, can actually perpetuate inequalities based on race and gender.

The idea that society is structured in a way that inherently favors white men and disadvantages other groups.

The belief that white people's wealth and power are directly tied to the exploitation of people of color, particularly through slavery and colonization.

The process by which white people learn to see the world in a way that justifies the oppression of non-white groups.

The idea that social contracts can be used to legitimize the exploitation and oppression of non-white groups.

Anarchism is a system that emphasizes individual freedom and self-governance, rejecting the need for a state or any centralized authority.

Anarchism is flexible, allowing future generations to design their own social and economic systems based on their needs and values.

The current economic system is criticized for concentrating wealth in the hands of a few while exploiting workers and leaving the majority in poverty.

In an anarchist society, individuals freely choose their work based on their skills and interests, leading to a harmonious system based on cooperation.

Locke's justification of colonial expansion is based on the notion that land acquisition is valid only through agriculture and enclosure, disregarding the traditional land use practices of indigenous peoples.

Arneil criticizes Locke's view that land ownership is legitimate only through agricultural improvement, arguing that indigenous peoples' traditional land use practices are equally valid.

Locke's argument that unused land should be claimed because of potential spoilage is used to justify the appropriation of vast land areas by European colonizers, despite the lack of a market economy among indigenous populations.

The concept of a social contract assumes a starting point where individuals are isolated and independent, ignoring the existing social relationships and connections that precede the formation of any contract.

In a state of nature, self-preservation and power drive individuals to act rationally, leading to conflict and distrust. Everyone is roughly equal, so attacking first seems safer than being attacked.

People's shortsightedness and focus on immediate gains prevents cooperation in Hobbes' state of nature. There is no incentive for individuals to act for the long-term benefit of the community.

A strong sovereign is necessary to overcome shortsightedness and maintain order in Hobbes' state of nature. The sovereign acts as a common authority to enforce agreements and prevent conflict.

Kropotkin argues that cooperation and mutual aid are fundamental aspects of human nature, not just a product of society. This contradicts Hobbes' view of a harsh, individualistic state of nature.

Emma Goldman criticizes Hobbes' view of the state of nature, believing it is too pessimistic and that the state is too optimistic. She argues that real freedom comes from being emancipated from government control.

Goldman argues that the state is a tool of oppression, enslaving and subordinating individuals to its rules. She advocates for anarchism, a system without any form of government.

Goldman argues that religion, property, and the state themselves are threats to social equality. They create systems of power imbalances and exploitation.

Goldman believes that violence arises from ignorance and the flawed structures of society, not from anarchism. She argues that anarchism is a practical solution for removing societal wrongs and building a better life.

Goldman emphasizes that anarchism does not force a specific blueprint for the future. Instead, it is a process of ongoing struggle and evolution, shaped by the changing needs and challenges of society.

Goldman believes that the misunderstanding of anarchism often leads to violence, not the philosophy itself. She sees violence as a consequence of ignorance and the state's oppressive systems.