Dear Ipso Fatso,

We are not automata, and laws are not always just. Sometimes we must violate the law to follow our conscience.

Henry Thoreau violated the law in refusing to pay his taxes as he thought it wrong for the government to use his money in support of the Mexican War for which the motivation was to extend slavery. He wrote an essay on civil disobedience in defense of his action.

https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html contains his essay.

Gandhi refused to pay the salt tax, and led a movement that protested against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

People in Syracuse, NY where I was born violated the Fugitive Slave Act before the Civil War in refusing to return an escaped slave to his master.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Rescue

Sometimes, a person of conscience pays the supreme penalty in violating a law. Franz Jaegerstatter refused to serve in the Nazi army during WW2 and was beheaded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Solitary_Witness tells his story.

Justice demands that laws that promote injustice must be challenged and violated if necessary

Dear Ipso Fatso,

I second David F.

«We have laws.»

No - THEY have laws, they who call themselves "the state", they never asked us whether or not we want to be part of or have anything to do with their gang and just because they send their hounds after us, and even if we obey them out of fear, that does not make them any more right than us.

.

Dear David,

.

Many thanks for that interesting list of conscientious objectors.

There is one more I should like to add. In fact, it is the one who impressed me the most apart, perhaps, from Gandhi who also impressed me quite a lot, though, in a sense, Gandhi’s action was perhaps less extraordinary in that it was coming from a political activist.

The “greatest” conscientious objector, in my mind, was Cassius Clay alias Muhammad Ali.

Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) there had always been a sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that many of the so-called conscientious objectors were deep down inside weak cowards who were simply afraid but would never admit it – even to themselves.

Whereas there was nothing in Cassius Clay’s attitude or performance in the ring that suggested he was a coward. He even made it quite clear that he was willing to go to war if it was to defend his religious faith. He explained :

« “My conscience won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America, and shoot them for what? They never called me niger, they never lynched me, they didn’t put any dogs on me, they didn’t rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father. … Shoot them for what? How can I shoot them, poor people? Just take me to jail ».

I guess he really was “the greatest” – and not just in the ring !

.

Well said, Banjo.

There is no 'them' and 'us'.
We are all here together.
We are the same.
We can pool our effort, as does a team, or we can go in different directions.
Team work produces better outcomes.
That is the best way to go.
Team effort has produced comfort and advantages which would amaze those from long ago?
I would rather live in the present day than be alive way back in history.
I wish that those who are busily creating division in Australia, would stop and reconsider.

Of course, some of our instincts are a bit out of place in a modern world.
And some people are born with tendencies to behave in a harmful and even dangerous way.
So we have the unenviable task of locating them and separating them from the rest.
In spite of all that, we can live a good life with great opportunity.
Any idea that there is a contest between 'us' and those in control, is stretching the truth.
Of course, those in control can lose touch with the people now and then.
They need to be reminded occasionally just who the boss is.
It is team-people for sure.
At least in a democracy.
Giving them a sharp reminder of this can benefit us all.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

A team has common goals.
A team is in agreement of what constitutes success (or victory, if competing with other teams).
A team is entered into voluntarily, and can be renounced too when no longer appropriate.
Members are proud to be in their team.

I know very well what belonging in a team means - take for example the orchestras and choirs I am playing or have been playing/singing with in the past: I am very happy and proud to be a member, we aim to play/sing the best music we can, success means making our audience happy while making as few mistakes as possible. This is not even a democracy - we don't even get to choose our music, the conductor does, as well as thousands of musical and logistical details and we happily comply. We play/sing together, performing our roles with precise timings, not just what we feel at the time, or to try impressing the audience with our individual abilities.

It would be ridiculous to say the same of all the people who happen to live in this (or any other) continent. Our goals vary most significantly, with little or nothing in common. What may be counted a success for one could be a disaster for another. We have not asked to belong with the others, but just happen to park our bodies in relative proximity, that's all.

This is not to say that we should not be kind to our neighbours, of course we should, but our relationship with them is not that of team-mates.

There is a difference between others who have harmful and/or dangerous tendencies and others who simply want to live their lives peacefully their own way, pursuing their own goals which could be quite different to yours.

The rule should be: live and let live!

Those in "control" do not respect this rule.

As for democracy, well and good but it's just a detail pertaining to a team's internal organisation: first it needs to be a team and then you need to be in it of your free will.