I was also reminded of Dr. King's letter, and thought it was interesting compare King's achievement of his goal through civil disobedience and Brown's achievement of his goal through whatever force he deemed necessary. The full discussion of their comparative methods would probably be lengthy, but I couldn't help thinking that King had technology on his side. Brown had no system of instantaneous communication with those he might consider his allies, so for him to gather the 2-3 people that might support him in each village probably made less sense than gathering a small contingent of vetted soldiers and fighting to free slaves by force. Still, if the speed and capacity of communication in Brown's day were comparable to at least the telephonic capacities that King had at his disposal, I would entertain the idea that he might have been able to gather up enough supporters to at least overcome the label of insanity that the press placed upon him; I think the press would have a harder time labeling a thousand men insane than nineteen. Then again, perhaps speed of communication was not a crucial element, since Thoreau didn't seem to indicate that the 2-3 people in each village were in any hurry to put their lives in danger for a principle.

I had some trouble extending this idea of a John Brown to modern day. With the advent of the internet and cheap communication, everybody who has a strong belief in anything can get their ideas out to the public, and perhaps even gather a small contingent. If the (relative) anonymity of the internet allows people to discuss and develop ideas, to get beyond the superficiality of the daily routine, then aren't the wheels of justice greased by this, so that if an idea or action will promote justice, it will have the capacity go go viral?

Or is that just hopeful thinking and the world-changing ideas poured out into cyberspace will actually be drowned out by abuse of the tool of anonymity?

--Main.KirillLevashov - 28 Feb 2012

King's letter takes a pointedly different view. I would encourage everyone to read it who has not already done so because I would do a disservice in trying to paraphrase, but the main premise is that there is a difference between unjust laws (any law that degrades human personality, any law that the numerical majority compels the minority to follow but does not follow itself, a law out of harmony with moral, natural, or eternal law, any law that is inflicted on a group denied political representation) and just laws (any law that uplifts human personality, that the majority follows, that is in harmony with moral, natural or eternal law). One has a "moral responsibility," King says, to disobey unjust laws. He further states that "one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty...an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

Both Dr. King and John Brown openly challenged the unjust law and accepted the penalty. Whether Brown did so "lovingly" is perhaps question I can't answer based on the limited reading that we had, but it seems a plausible inference given that he gave up that which was most dear to him (his children, followed by his life) for the principle that the law of slavery was wrong. Whether a purported social change agent operates from a place of love is, to me, the fundamental distinction between an abortion clinic bomber, those who fly airplanes into office buildings, and my neighbors in Southern Arizona who take potshots at the border crossers in the dessert in the name of defending this country against "illegals," and the John Browns and Dr. Kings. This is a troubling difference though, because the law doesn't appear to make room for such flimsy matters.

-- JessicaWirth - 28 Feb 2012,