breaking the law!

There are many cases in which I would endorse civil disobedience and most of my examples are similar to those that Ghandi and Martin Luther King used. Any law that targets or harms certain groups of people based on sex, religion, race, economic status, etc. I would believe to be unjust. Slavery is a great example. It targeted blacks and allowed the physical abuse of them. It was/is painfully obvious that legal slavery is unjust.

I would agree with St. Augustine who said "an unjust law is no law at all" because I believe laws should be fair, and hence, "just". So, if a law is not fair, or unjust, it can't exist as a law.

I believe the laws that the US is passing that allows the government to intrude on its citizens' privacy under the veil of "security" can develop into an unjust law. I believe that we are entitled to a certain level of privacy. If the government began to intrude on our privacy and began a witch hunt that targeted Muslims and they began to lose their civil liberties, then i would advocate the use of Civil Disobedience.

Mills and Marx.

With regards to the stances that Mills and Marx take regarding freedom of people under a ruling government, i would tend to agree with a little bit of both.

Ideally, I think Mills concept of freedom is the best because he feels as long as people aren't being coerced by the state, then they are free. I think this is probably the closest definition to absolute freedom because he doesn't take into account economics as Marx does. After reading his passages in the text book, I think his idea of freedom is what most people think of as living free. Generally, I feel that as long as I am not harming myself or anyone else, then i should be able to do what i want.

However, capitalism is the driving force behind the U.S.'s economy so that is why I also believe in Marx's definition of freedom. As we know, money is equated with power, especially in America. It seems that one can almost get away with anything if they have money. Take the OJ Simpson trial for example. Obviously I was not there and didn't witness the murder, but in my opinion, the evidence was enough to convict him of the crime but he was acquitted because he could afford a high price lawyer. Let's also take Magic Johnson. He had acquired HIV and since he is wealthy, he could afford all the high-priced drugs to keep him alive but there are millions of poor people who die everyday from the disease because they cannot afford the medication. 

I definitely would want a government who would protect me if another wealthy individual, or company, tried to force me to do something simply because they had money than me, and therefore more power than me.

the role of a government

I believe that humans are intrinsically selfish beings. We tend to do what's in our best interest and often we can harm others, or do what is not morally right, in order to fulfill our interests.

Therefore, I tend to believe Hobbes argument that government has an authority to secure peace and keep people's natural selfish instinct in check. Otherwise, we'd have a chaotic society. 

I have a hard time imagining a society where everyone coexists peacefully with each other, thus negating a need for a government that Hobbes suggests. I cannot recall a time where humans were not fighting, stealing, or doing harmful things to each other. We do it now, even with a government that is supposed to protect us, so can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have one to keep us in check?