If they wish to be conscientious objectors, or political, factional activists, or exercise their right to civil disobedience, they of course possess that right. But not on the taxpayers’ dime nor not while they’re on duty. For to do so is a clear act of insubordination and a massive dereliction of duty.
But once ensconced in the Capitol and protected by the sympathetic State Troopers, the union thugs and liberal-progressive activists and professional agitators then proceeded to disrupt the legislative process and to harass state workers, and to physically intimidate Republican legislators and their staff members and to shout them down even while they were in session. Worse yet, many of these Republicans received actual death threats and the Republican Majority leader of the Senate was also actually, physically jostled and surrounded by a mob shouting in highly abusive language, who also hurled wretched threats at him. A truly harrowing experience doubtless to say.
Well, again, I must state that that sort of behavior is in no way an exercise in true democracy, but rather again, is a form of political partisan and factional thuggery, mob rule and intellectual and philosophic lawlessness.
Now I anticipate that the liberal-left will respond that this was merely an exercise in their God given right to dissent through civil disobedience. Well let’s examine that argument a little closer.
Historically there are three essential and seminal thinkers and actors who not only theorized and philosophized what true civil disobedience is, but actually put it into practice. They are first Socrates (through Plato and the four Platonic dialogues surrounding the trial and death of Socrates); Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
(As for Thoreau and his essay on civil disobedience, I maintain both he and his essay are an intellectual and philosophic fraud, for if one reads the essay carefully one will, or, one should clearly see that Thoreau is advocating anarchy and not civil disobedience.)
There are two basic sine qua non criteria/requirements which make an act of civil disobedience truly legitimate. Both of these criteria must be requited for that act to be a true and legitimate measure of civil disobedience. And both Gandhi and MLK fulfilled both these requirements.
First and foremost, the law and or social custom or more in question, must truly be beyond the pale, must truly be immoral. I am sorry, but political, factional and partisan differences just do not qualify, and that is exactly what transpired in Wisconsin - it was simply a matter of political and highly partisan and factional differences concerning policy and power, and yes, basic political ideology; as well as pure, unmitigated vested self-interest on the part of the unions and the liberal-progressive activists and professional agitators. And those sort of petty, factional and petty differences are never equivalent to true, fundamental, genuine morality. No cigar nor coopee doll on this one - not even remotely close.