Leibman's Argument Against Civil Disobedience

Engulfed by the surge of deep ocean waves, the immense mass of the blue whale entangled in the sea fought the swell of humanity’s ignorance. Little did this whale know, it was the elemental block that held up the fight over environmental protection. Little did that blue whale know, it paved the fundaments for disobedience in opposition to injustice. Any positive change brought through by legislation of a governmental action could be traced back to a version of domestic protest. As a result, it is safe and justifiable to draw the conclusion that civil disobedience constructs a societal structure that gives power to the powerless.
Civil disobedience provides a path to revolutionary change for those most desperately put under the knife of oppression. Defying the laws of social injustice produces a society that favors dissenting voices and decomposes the structure that promotes injustice. Rosa Parks, a revolutionary forced into submission by the racist Jim Crow laws of the south led her battle over equality and freedom through none other than civil disobedience. It was her act of defiance to surrender her seat to a white man that molded her figure into one fighting for justice and reform. Evaluating her actions …show more content…
Leibman justify the case against civil disobedience by arguing that this form of “nonviolent resistance” paves way for more aggressive and violent acts. While it may seem that this logic may seem to support certain instances of violent opposition, the gained values of shared democracy and personal worth in the affected community greatly outweigh any risk of there being some sort of problematic violent uprising. Additionally, any act of violent protest was violent in it’s core. No violent act was inspired by Rosa Park’s unwillingness to submit to racists social structures that dehumanized and degraded people of color. Properly, positive systemic change is rooted in acts of nonviolence rather violent