There are a wide array of strategies for fighting societal injustice. The simplest, of course, is to respond in kind: to fight injustice with injustice. Taken to an extreme, this would lead to revolution: if the government is unjust, then the citizens should rise up and overthrow it. This can be counterproductive, however, because violence begets more violence. In our political culture, the notion of civil disobedience has emerged as a leading alternative to revolution, because "Civil disobedience is a tactic, a tactic of resistance" (RIIA, 13). Civil disobedience itself operates on a spectrum, from liberal civil disobedience preached by 20th Century philosopher John Rawls to the more strident radical civil disobedience preached by anarchists. It is my belief that the only form of civil disobedience that can succeed in a democratic nation is the liberal form. The government must be shamed into submission through the mobilization of public opinion against the particular injustice in question. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi were the most inspirational civil disobedience practitioners in history, and their movements succeeded precisely because they refused to resort to violence in the face of violence. Their non-violent approach to civil disobedience remains the most effective method available to shame society into becoming more just.
Liberal civil disobedience has its roots in the work of Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau believed that the law in and of itself did not represent justice. Many laws were manifestly unjust, Thoreau believed, which meant that "it is not desirable to cultivate respect for the law so much as for the right" (Thoreau). This meant that when faced with injustice, civil disobedience was a responsibilityùnot merely a right: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison" (Thoreau). Thoreau did not, however, preach that violent means should be use...