I hesitate to put this out there. I don’t like getting political online because nuanced discussion seems dead. I’ve illustrated things in the past hated by both Conservatives and Liberals for being against their side of things. I’m not for sides as much as I am for principles and I try to call out hypocrisy wherever it hides.
Anywho, here’s an illustration about government surveillance.
Some may see this and think that I’m talking about the London ULEZ cameras being torn down… and I guess I am a little, but it’s more than that. I’m a privacy advocate. I’m generally against government surveillance.
Here’s some close ups.
Years ago, I drew these two pieces about government surveillance or being “bugged.” This is something that has been on my mind for a while.
I lived in Scotland for a couple of years in my early 20s. I loved it. But, there are government cameras everywhere. All over the UK, CCTV cameras film everything. It’s a massive invasion of privacy that I hope never hits the states. I fear that if it does hit the states it may be worse and end up being run by some tech start up that is eventually purchased by some giant corporation.
I read up a little on the ULEZ issues and I found pretty much what you’d expect: groups of people calling the other side idiots. It’s about improving air quality, something I think everyone can get behind. But the implementation of it seems to disproportionately harm the poor and less fortunate. It was started by one political party and then expanded by different party. People dressed in balaclavas and hoodies or inflatable dinosaur costumes run around destroying the cameras used to enforce a fee on certain vehicles. Others mock the vigilantes as simple-minded criminals that want children to die of various lung related issues. Depending on what you read, the program is either completely ineffective in stopping pollution or a massive success in improving the air quality. There are rumors of these vandals being uneducated crazy racist conspiracy theorists. It’s difficult to sort through all of this. I don’t know where I stand except for I think better air quality is awesome and government surveillance is not awesome.
I don’t trust too much power in the hands of too few people. I don’t trust tools that can be used to a chilling effect on free speech or movement. These things tend to corrupt. I like checks and balances. And privacy is a big deal. More so now that so many don’t seem to care that their every click and keystroke is being tracked, tagged and sold. I wonder sometimes if the peoples all over the world will eventually be surveilled everywhere they go… and if anyone would care. We tend to normalize outrageous things if we’re exposed to them long enough. The Scottish people had gotten used to their every action being filmed and analyzed by the government.
“That would never happen here,” is the placating cry of those that are blindly losing their rights to privacy. There’s an assumption that things will stay the same. But things always change.
As a general rule, we shouldn’t give good governments powers that we wouldn’t want bad governments to use against us. I’m not going to advocate for breaking the law and I’d like this illustration to be taken symbolically. We should seek to help people, make the world better, and fight against government overreach and the destruction of privacy. Often, those things are at odds with each other. Nuance. There are no simple answers.
I live in an area of good air quality. I remember the poor air quality of the greater LA area that has vastly improved in the last 40 years. Breathing clean air is a goal we all should have, but I don’t think that the ends justify the means and we shouldn’t allow the expansion of the tools of oppression in the name of doing something good. Too often we give up much in exchange for very little.
I remember waking up one day and realizing that I had paid for and placed bugs in my own home so Amazon could listen in on my family’s private conversations. What did I gain in exchange for this massive loss of privacy? The ability to turn my lights on and off with my voice… poorly… mostly having to repeat myself several times while standing next to the light switch. I should have asked:
"What win I if I gain the thing I seek?
A dream, a breath, a froth of fleeting joy.
Who buys a minute's mirth to wail a week
Or sells eternity to get a toy?
For one sweet grape who will the vine destroy?”The Rape of Lucrece By William Shakespeare
But it was neat. It was novel. It was a fun trick. But it wasn’t more convenient. It didn’t significantly improve my life. Sometimes I had to shush my family or mute music to shout a specific command to the smart speaker. I often had to repeat myself. When I wanted to turn the lights on, I was entering the room. This is where we put light switches.
I had paid for these devices and they had begun to condition my behavior to fit them. It wasn’t worth it. I got rid of all of the “smart” speakers and no one in my family missed them at all. We had sold our privacy for a minute’s mirth. It reminds me of the lyric:
“My tasks were simple, I had a good technique.
Now with computers they take me all week.”
Looking Away by Flashlight Brown
So, I worry a little bit about putting this one out there. I’ll be clear: it’s about fighting the spread of Government surveillance. If anyone uses it to promote bigotry, racism, violence, or hate… you’re a huge part of the problem.
Extra Reading and Quotes (that didn’t make it in, but should have somehow)
“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
“If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth- certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.” Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." ~ Henry David Thoreau
Here’s the famous MLK quote and then I’ll post it in context after a few other quotes…
“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
"It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen." Aristotle
"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."
Albert Einstein
"Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless or corrupt." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may." ~ Mark Twain
"We cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong... There are good laws and there are occasionally bad laws, and it conforms to the highest traditions of a free society to offer resistance to bad laws, and to disobey them." ~ Alexander Bickel
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke
Alright… here’s the big section… it’s worth reading the entire letter, but here’s the section that jumped out to me the most:
There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws.
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that 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.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.