What are the negative sides for civil disobedience?

Question

In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriateweapon for the fight for justice. I need a negative side for this

Answer 1

Civil disobedience can foster a disrespect for the law.  Once that disrespect becomes generalized, society would start to break down.

That is why it has to be used sparingly, if ever, and why those partaking of it must be willing to suffer any legal consequences of it until the law is changed.

Answer 2

If your side of an arguement cannot be concidered moral or just by most people, civil disobedience simply does not work.

Examples that work are things like the blacks in the south sitting at the lunch counters just taking up space in protest of not being served, that works.  Most people do believe that a customer is a customer, so their protest works.

Chaining yourself to a random tree to protest logging, that doesn't work.  Most people know that if you chain yourself to a tree that has been growing for 100 years, that means that 101 years ago it wasn't there, and it can be replanted.  That doesn't work because most people concider them kooks.  Their arguement is neither moral nor just.

Answer 3

Ok.. Let me get this straight.  In a democracy, crime is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.  Or are you talking about the type of civil disobedience that doesn’t involve breaking the law, which most people call protesting?  

I will go with the assumption you mean the crime one.  The negative side of crime to fight for justice.   First, it is breaking the law.  For example:  Because we don’t like the verdict in case A, we will chain ourselves to the doors of the court house, block entrances with ourselves and objects, disrupt other government business and traffic.  In short, let’s go out and perform, a range of petty crimes to protest something that did not go the way we wished it would.  Second, it encourages further breaking the law.  If nothing is perceived to be done to the law breakers, others see that it is ok to break the law and typically will go further to test the limits.  For example:  those people got away with all of their criminal activity, wouldn’t it be cool if we stole some of the court equipment, tore up a few offices and set the place ablaze?  And while we are at it, let’s beat up a few people who we think like the verdict in case A.  That would certainly show them what happens when they come to a verdict like that in case A!  A third negative is for the people that practice it, since they will be starting to build a criminal record and likely have fines and court fees to pay.  

As you can tell, I am not a fan of civil disobedience.  In my opinion you might as well ask this question: “In a democracy, assassination is an appropriate weapon for political change.  I need a negative side for this.”  As in this question and yours, I disagree with the initial assumption that it is “appropriate”.

Answer 4

Well, the whole point is the 'negative' side.  By disrupting government, service or business then attention must be paid.  Obviously this annoys those just trying to get their jobs done or those just trying do what they need to do.    So, by design, civil disobedience is disruptive and  annoying.  It sometimes escalates into violence.  It sometimes creates a backlash where the very thing being protested is made stronger.

This intended downside is magnified when the protest is mis-applied to issues that aren't real injustices or people don't care about.   For example if a handful of people who don't like right turn on red took to the streets and blocked intersections they would just be annoying people and endangering themselves.    But if the city banned feeding the homeless and arrested those that tried,  you just might have a full scale protest with all kinds of illegal food being passed out and have city commissioners re-think their solution to the homeless problem (Yes this actually happened in Orlando)

Answer 5

If you engage in it, failing to disperse when ordered to do by the police, you get arrested and jailed. You are charged with a crime under the laws of the governmental jurisdiction that you have just demonstrated against and, if convicted, your conviction become a permanent part of the rest of your life.

Answer 6

The negative side is very simple.

Through civil disobedience you are 1) placing your political opinions above the law, and 2) using your political opinions to rationalize interfering with other people's lawful activities.

If you are willing to ignore the law in pursuit of your political goals - think of the danger we would be in if you ever gained actual political power.

Answer 7

The problem with the current system of civil disobedience is that people want to protest, and then say "I should not suffer the consequences for my actions because I was engaged in civil disobedience".

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, she went to jail.  Then the argument was, should her crime have been a crime at all?  When people chain themselves to doors or block traffic, they are doing something which infringes on the rights of others and the "crime" they commit does not actually have anything to do with their protest.

The negative argument I would use is that most people do not understand what true civil disobedience is, practice it correctly, and be willing to suffer the legal consequences for their actions.