Mark Harrigan wrote ; "A disturbing moral dilemma. However on balance I am opposed to actions...."
Which is a right and valid position to take from your worldview.
"...but to claim a moral basis for action that puts anyone above the law is not the answer." In your opinion.
The same mining groups understand your rules and strident belief in them. Manipulating our legal system to suit their agenda, while complying with the right 'moral' and legal approach.
So in your opinion how do humans fight 'non living entities'?
In other words corporate entities with extensive economic resources, driven by exponential profit, using 'lawful' means to exploit our ecosystem and who can potentially live forever.
Just how well is your 'moral' level of thinking working for humans against these amoral entities?

hmm - lots of value laden assumtions in your response Paul.

Are all companies and mining entities amoral? Are they not subject to the same legal system that we as individual citizens are? If they take action that some of us, as citizens, regard as immoral do we not have legal and democratic processes available to us to oppose?

Mining companies, and companies generally, are bound by a social contract and by the law. They are also run and owned by people - each of whom I am sure have their own moral code - however different it might be from mine. As a company their main objective is increasing shareholder wealth and the perform a socially valid purpose in pursuit of it. Certainly some of them step outside the contractual and legal constraints society imposes on them - and for that they should be held accountable - indeed as are private citizens. If we want to place greater constraints on them (for example forcing them to carry the sconomic costs of the climate damage they contribute toward) we are all free to campaign for such - carbon tax anyone??. And at an individual level we can withdraw our support for their products.

I think it is a very slippery slope to claim some sort of "moral" basis for stepping outside the law - to take it to an extreme the Taliban claim a moral basis for their attacks on women and their murder of innocents -as do terrorists when they blow people up - so who is to "decide" what is a moral basis for action and when such action should be superior to the law that we make as part of the social contract?? You? Me?

I prefer to limit the imposition of my moral code to myself alone - and if I think others should adopt different behaviour - whether as individuals, corporations or society as a whole - then I am limited to methods of legal persuasion - be that campaigning, voting, demonstrating, legal activism (I am a fan of the GET UP approach) or where I choose to give my fiscal support.

Mark Harrigan wrote; "hmm - lots of value laden assumtions in your response Paul."
What assumptions? Do you mean assuming corporations act without human values? Guilty.
Without human imposed values yes, as they have imposed rules. However, there is only one primary driver for corporations, profit. Is this your primary driver? My assumption is no.
Mark Harrigan wrote;"Are all companies and mining entities amoral?"
Yes, can you show me a 'value system' other than a regulated set of parameters caring for human communities before profit?
These are non living entities humans cleverly limit their liability and self esteem behind, while leveraging capital for material gain. Do you grasp what that means from a civil / criminal legal position for shareholders and executives?
Mark Harrigan wrote; "Are they not subject to the same legal system that we as individual citizens are?"
Yes, if you believe you have access to the same legal resources. But is this an illusion? At the outside it is a earlier generations aspiration or it could actually be economically possible for a privileged few.
Mark Harrigan wrote; "If they take action that some of us, as citizens, regard as immoral do we not have legal and democratic processes available to us to oppose?"
This premiss affords corporations not only rights equal to humans, but above them. Because in reality people cannot legally challenge corporations. Do you assume they can?
It is interesting technological singularity is heading our way rapidly. Lets hope the coming generations do not project your values onto corporations in the future, so far is automation 10 and humans zip. The business world including human executives no longer use your value system, just the illusion of it.
Mark Harrigan wrote;"They are also run and owned by people - each of whom I am sure have their own moral code - however different it might be from mine." Not comforting to hear you actually believe and accept their position as a viable set of values.
Mark Harrigan wrote;"Mining companies, and companies generally, are bound by a social contract and by the law" This is an interesting comment, because if the legal contracts were were not imposed by our lagging authoritarian legal system, do you believe corporations would self regulate putting human needs before profit?
First, second and third world countries are litered with damage caused by resources corporations who put profit first, even with or without 'regulations'. Do you actually need examples, there are plenty just from the last five years?
Mark Harrigan wrote;"I think it is a very slippery slope to claim some sort of "moral" basis for stepping outside the law" It would be entirely wrong for you to do so, as it would break your personal value system. This indeed would be wrong of you, inappropriate and unfair to expect.
However projecting your values onto this twenty three year old is unfair, as he has grown through your values and no longer sees them as valid. Able to see the corporation as vehicle for exponential profit at all cost and with his current values, can see no other path.
Mark Harrigan wrote;"... so who is to "decide" what is a moral basis for action and when such action should be superior to the law that we make as part of the social contract?? You? Me?
The generations coming through and their historical revision.
Thankfully by modelling the best of your generation and evolving new advanced values as they evolve themselves, they will deal with the corporation. They will make mistakes, get things right and wrong, but they will grow and evolve better values. This young man is around the age of the most mature during the Gallipoli and Kokoda Track military campaigns and look what a legacy of values they left behind.

Paul - if you assume corporations act without values then you assume corporations have the ability to make decision independently of the moral agents who control them - who are humans with moral values.

I think that is in error.

That is not to say i share the vaalues and morals with which corporations act - far from it.

The rest of your post appears to me to be vacuosu waffle with a pretence of moral superiority that I do not think any of us hold. I think my position is clear.

In a representative democracy enabled by a universal franchise then I regard the rule of law as sacrosanct - where the law fails it should be challenged and changed by a proper legal and democractic process. Not by arbitrary appeal to a supposed moral claim that has no basis in that universal franchsie.

Mark Harrigan wrote:"... vacuous waffle with a pretence of moral superiority"
Apologies for the 'vacuous waffle', this was just poor writing. However the moral superiority is a projection.
Mark Harrigan wrote: "In a representative democracy enabled by a universal franchise then I regard the rule of law as sacrosanct" Yes, with respect this is understood about your position.
Being far more pragmatic, any approach to a 'group' such as a profit making corporation needs a courteous approach.
Using language and ideas you find offensive would have a similar response and get nowhere.

Thanks Glenn - that is a really interesting case and an interesting decision. The key point would appear to be "due to an immediate need to protect property belonging to another".

Clearly, in this instance, the jury was obviously persuaded that the damage from climate change - though future and uncertain (although the science says likely) - was enough to satisfy the requirement. I suppose that the damage itself need not be immediate - only the need for protection to be immediate.

If this issue comes to court I am not sure if the same test would apply though as it probably to be prosecuted under local corporations law and I'm not sure the same defence could be used against the charge of making a false and misleading statement?

So, while Moylan's action might seem to you be ethically justifiable I do not think it will be judged to be legally so?

Finished reading Alinsky's Rules For Radicals recently - gave me an idea: I reckon GetUp (aka The Hitler Youth Wing of the Green party - such badge of honour to be called that by a Liberal MP) need to start organising their members superannuation. I wonder how much investment dollars sit in their members accounts? How much currently in coal, etc?

That's the idea Mr Tim... we've become "stakeholders" in the national asset pool courtesy of superannuation... we have "democratised" capitalism. We're all investors now. Well, a teensy weensy bit. Big when you add it up though.

The capitalist will sell us the rope with which to hang him, said Lenin.
I don't think he realised the rope might come as a margin-loan funded put option controlled on a 10% deposit.

That's what we need! Our own Rogue Trader in league with the likes of Get Up! A Robin Hood of the Bourse!

I'm whipping up a cape and mask as we speak.

Banditry??? My goodness no Spiro! Heaven forbid!

We're just talking about investment - they can spot a bandit a mile off those fellas there on the Stockmarkets. You can tell by all the arrests and expulsions.

No we're talking shares, trading, analytical information ... all public, all reasonable effort aimed at achieving a contrived fluctuation in share price ... no one makes money if everything stays the same Spiro... the spreading of rumours and gossip ... selling things you don't own to buy them back next day for a profit ...

My god! Imagine if our stock markets were suddenly susceptible to such dark forces.

They are of course Spiro - but if its about making a quid we sort of tolerate it - turn a blind eye. But if it's about using market power to say enough is enough - oooh no that would be banditry.

Greek history is fair filled with the deeds of great bandit heroes. The rich always call them bandits - or terrorists. Right up until they win. Like Mandela. Or Gandhi. Nkruma, any rebel you'd care to name ...Bandits all.

We like our bandit-heroes here Spiro. Ned Kelly would be a shoo-in for our first President of the Australian Republic.

Democratic processes that extend protected citizenship rights to corporations while limiting the liability of shareholders are not worth defending. We need to re-imagine and reinstitute democracy in accordance with contemporary ecological knowledge and modernised democratic theory. Until that happens current democratic processes are fair game for disruption.

Spiro Vlachos wrote ; "the higher moral code that we all share".
In your opinion, "we all share" in your level of thinking. Do we, are you that certain?
Investing in non living entities, with possible eternal life, at the apex of the economic pyramid above humans may very well be a profitable. But how moral is it hiding behind corporations to limit personal liability knowing they put profit over humanities needs?
Moral code of bandits hmmm ......... interesting position.

yes, he's going to do time for this, how much time depends on his barrister, i reckon. they'll throw everything they have at him. and the people who issued the false report about david jones last year, are they in jail yet? i smell the rank hypocrisy of corporate capitalism & its supine lapdog "liberal" democracy. corporations own our governments - its time to wake up & fight back. the kid's opened a new front in the struggle to take back our democracy from the faceless unelected by us boards of the corporations. -a.v.

@ Anthony Nolan

In this country corporations are not persons - though they are entities described as "fictitious" persons. Nor is this concept of legal personality absolute - since it is subject to "piercing the veil". They do not enjoy "protected citizenship rights" of any form. They do not have the rights of citizens to vote, for example, though they can own property and sue, they also cannot hold elected office

They exist because of the laws enacted by a parliament in this country which was democratically elected. They are bound by such laws. On what ethical basis do you claim that your view of how they should be incorporated should be changed? No doubt we can look forward to you running for elected office on that basis??

What's this talk of democratic processes being disrupted? Since when has the stock market been an institution of liberal democracy - up with parliamernt and folks in wigs?

Be nice if it was - and perhaps that is what is essence is the issue - bringing the activities of corporations - or a corporation - under some sort of democratic/social control other than purely and slavishly serving the ugly short-term greed of their shareholders.

Our power as producers is greatly diminished - unions have never been more marginal and adrift here. Perhaps we have never had more power than as organised consumers - even investors. Yep even gutting the mums and dads. Who else? Who else is ever gutted? This is a market - not a tea party.

And we could all make a killing into the bargain. How democratic is that!!!!?

John Coochey wrote: "...I wonder if it would still be reputable when its predictions do not come true?"

Why are you concerned the baby boomers will be long gone by then.

Paul Richards - i'm a baby boomer & i'm very concerned. being agesist isn't gong to help this. maybe in reply to boomer denialists you could say something like: "baby boomers, <like you>, will be long gone by then". -a.v.

alfred venison wrote ; i'm a baby boomer & i'm very concerned. Are you, about what?
The fact a twenty three year old has risked his future for his perceived community benefit?
Or perhaps pointing out some commentators have little vested interest?

Paul - i applaud his action & salute his courage - indeed, i'm waiting for his defence fund to swing into action so i can sling 'em a fin. i think there are going to be more actions like his, which i will applaud too, before this is over. as the powers that be close down other "legitimate" avenues of protest, as they become effective, civil disobedience will increase as the only non-violent option they can't shut down in advance by legislation, grounded as it is in disobedience. he didn't stop the mine & he won't have stopped investment in it, but he has sure as heck has put coal exports & climate change into the news on the same day the bureau of met has to use a new colour on the charts. they won't be able to talk about him & this action without also talking about coal exports & climate change.

you should be more specific & resort less to stereotypes when you slag people - not all baby boomers are interested only in their pensions. how old is jim henson? how old is bob brown who, boomer that he is, is adding the value of his celebrity & putting himself on the line to sail with sea shepherd in its current expedition? agesism is divisive, Paul, you should criticise people for what they say, not for how old they are. -a.v.

alfred venison said "agesism is divisive, Paul, you should criticise people for what they say, not for how old they are." Ageism, is your weasel word, the question is relevant.
Does anyone who is unwilling to admit their generation got it wrong deserve inclusion? Yes, it was a legitimate rhetorical question and was for John Coochey's interior.
It is clear where you are concerned, as your values are public here. Some have grown aware others have not, that has little to do with age.
Your values are respected for what they are, as are John Coochey's.

"unwilling to admit their generation got it wrong". geez, Paul, that's pretty sweeping again. in my workplace its the numerous gen-y there who deny climate change against all reasoned argument by myself & others my age. and we don't slag their generation in the process. where were you, for example, during the annual palm sunday marches against nuclear re-armament? in your parents arms, i hope. if you intended your remark for John Coochey's "interior" you worded it poorly & caught others - on your side of the argument - in the spray of your verbal blunderbuss. i think "ageist" actually catches your style in this instance, and maybe stubborn, too, but thanks for spelling my name right. -a.v.

alfred venison wrote "Paul - i applaud his action & salute his courage -" Projecting your values onto my words is yours, own it, its respected.
It is evident the door for an argument is two down. But thanks for the offer.

i give up, Paul, you've stopped making any sense. -a.v.

Try it and find out!

I'll warrant you'll find that there is considerable public support for illegal environmental actions and none for your brand of ratbaggery.

I see Anthony - so "considerable public support" is all that is required and that makes illegal actions acceptable? Do you hold the same view on moral issues?

Is it, for example, morally acceptable to end all overseas immigration and block assylum seekers from seeking assylum because the majority of people want it?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/archive/national-old/the-tide-of-public-opinion-is-turning-against-immigration/story-e6freuzr-1226362835067

I think your claims to morality are a very slippery slope indeed.

We have laws in this country, and the rule of law, for a reason. It is to protect us all from those who wish to take action solely because they believe they have a "moral" basis for doing so

Mark Harrigan: moral decision making in liberal democracies can be tested against Kantian principles, that is, universalizability. Where those acts pass the test of universal application and have popular support then the law, where wrong, is no barrier to action.

This young man's action are clearly designed to promote a survivable environment which, quite obviously, is in the interests of all but those whose profit driven behaviour the root cause of th problem. That's the one percent, yeah? The rest of us constitute the ninety nine percent. That's a massive pass for the universalizability test.

BTW: I find the current format of The Conversation unsatisfactory in relation to the order of comments. It is a fragmented conversation now, to say the least, with comments having to appear prior to the comment that they are addressing. It might be ok if you're a pomo philosopher but they're used to getting things arse about. I'm not.

@ Mark Harrigan

Hi Mark, you seem to have a very black and white view from reading your comments. What would you say to Rosa Parks and the women who attempted the same previously?

Hi Nick - if you were familiar with my posting here on TC I doubt you would say my views are black and white - though I do express them forcefully and with vigour so I can understand why they might appear so.

If you read my other posts here you will see the clarification that has emerged in the dialogue with others. But I'll repeat it here.

I have been talking about the rule of law as it applies in this instance - namely Australia today - not just an arbitray set of laws as may exist eslewhere or has existed in the past.

I regard the rule of law as being of very high moral value when it is based on laws made in a representative democracy based on a universal (adult) franchise by a democratically elected parliament accountable to the people. I therefore have a great deal of trouble for claiming it is acceptable to break that law solely by claiming aa moral superiority that has not been accepted or tested by the universal franchise (however much I might agree with the sympathies behind why such an action was taken - as in fact i do sympathize in this instance).

I wonder why so many here - who no doubt enjoy the democracy we live in - are so willing to ignore this? You don't have to look far afield to see what it can be like to live where there is no rule of law based on such a democratic franchise, or where such laws as there are can be so easily set aside to suit the government in power.

So, I would say in relation to Rosa (who was clearly a woman of great courage) that here challenge to the law of the day was quite acceptable because the Segregation Act (which she defied in 1955 was not based on a universal franchise - (I believe that did not come for another 10 years.

That nuanced enough for you?

@ Mark Harrigan

Thanks for the reply, I wasn't trying to be snarky and maybe missed a comment on the thread (harder to follow these days). I am familiar with your comments and nearly always wholeheartedly agree with you which is why I asked the question. It was a genuine question arising from an obvious misconception and your elucidation has me agreeing with you once again. Cheers

Cheers Nick.

For clarity, in this instance, I think it is perfectly possible to be opposed to the Whitehaven Coal development without approving illegal, and deceptive, actions against it. Nor do I think a single claim of "moral justification" is sufficient validity for taking such a step or to excuse the illegality.

However the full details of the case, if it comes to that, will throw more light on the matter. And Mr Moylan is entitled to his day in court and the presumption of innocence should it come to that.

Doing what is morally right according to who Michael?

You? The Taliban? The League of Rights? The Australian Christian Lobby?

It's ok Michael. Dr mark Harrigan (below) is suffering from a bout of ethical and moral relativism. His querelous comment only shows that he isn't capable of working his way through right speech and right action and that he gives the Taliban moral and ethical standing. There's the proof right there that his opinion is not worth a penny.

No Anthony - it is you who is suffering froma failure in logic. On what basis do either you, or Michael, hold that your "moraility" is superior to the law?

I personally find the value systems of the Taliban etc as repulsive. But I am simply pointing out that for anyone to claim "stuff the law - do what is "morally" right" they are explicitly claiming they have a moral superiority to the rest od society.

I regard the rule of law as a fundamental principle that proects us all from the sort of claims to moral superiority you implictly endorse

Mark Harrigan: it was you who gave the Taliban moral standing, not me. In doing so you've accpted their premise that thy are acting morally when anyone rational born after The Enlightenment would scoff at you. Numbers don't make you correct. That said, however, there are always grounds for dialogue between adherants of conflicting belief systems. What usually happens is that reasonable people agree that certain premises and ideas are accptable and others aren't. What you do, by comparison, is point to the existence of competing ideas as if this is proof of the impossibility of moral dialogue. It isn't. It merely proves the need for rational dialogue.

Besides which modern history is rddled with examples of people who were condemned at the time for breaking the law but who were shown, in time and with the benefit of hindsight and informed historical research, to have been moraly justified. I cite the anti-Vietnam war demonstrators and draft resistors as a prime example in recent times. At the time we said that the war was illegal and the Pentagon Papers proved us to be precisely right.

Anthony - my point was not to give the Taliban moral standing - although no doubt they regard themselves as having some. My point was that it is very difficult to claim a moral basis as superiority for being above the law since there are so many groups who claim a morality that many find repugnant.

And do not put words into my moutgh. I never claimed the impossibility of moral dialogue - quite the contrary. I pointed out that merely making a claim to "start doing what is morally right" as an excuse for breaking the law is a problem since it leaves unexamined the basis for such a moral claim and flies directly in the face of a very sound ethically based system - the rule of law (not subject to arbitrary morality)

What about the shareholders who lost money because of this hoax? Is it okay if some of them, who might have worked all their lives and made investments, were decieved by this and lost money?

And to apply Kant's universalizability test - what if everyone broke the law because they believed they had a moral basis for doing so?

Your anti-vietnam issue is a furphy. It was not illegal to protest against Vietnam (except of course in Qld at the time)- it was illegal to avoid conscription. The citizens at that time who opposed such a law (rightly in my view) exercised their democratic right to legally protest and oppose that system and it was changed.

That, for me, is the ethically acceptable way to bring about change in a representational democracy subject to the rule of law - not to simply claim some moral basis for being above the law.

Glenn, I have some sympathy for this view - but I do not think it will be a valid defence against the misleading and decpetive conduct provisions of the corporations law?

Mark Harrigan: I think you are a scaredy cat. French revolutionaries broke the law, for sure, and created the preconditions for modern democracy by doing so. You may quibble about being law abiding but all I see is someone who is complicit in ecocide, law abiding or not.

On reversing Kantian universalizability: your argument is a well known nonsense. If you can't imagine a world ruled by moral considerations that apply to all people, equally, then you're not a democrat.

Anthony - I will refrain from the personal insults that you seem to think are morally acceptable in this debate - though I do wonder on what ethical basis you make them.

It has nothing to do with fear. And the French revolutionaries ended up creating a system where the rule of law was absent resulting in replacing one tyranny of misery for another - perhaps you should study the period more closely before you hold it up as an exemplar. And there was no rule of law as we know it in France at the time - only rule by the whim of the aristocracy - later replaced by the rule at the whim of Robespierre and his reign of terror

But these are digressions. What we are talking about here is the rule of law as it applies in the representative democracy that is Australia - where laws are made by the parliament that we elect - not Revolutionary France, or Apartheid South Africa or even segregationist southern USA which disenfrachised a large chunk of its citizenry based on race.

And I have not reversed Kantian universlizability - I have applied it - and you have failed to answer - what if we all broke the law because we felt it was moral to do so? Especially where such law is made by a parliament elected by a universal franchise?

You also ask the strawman coupled with the insult "If you can't imagine a world ruled by moral considerations that apply to all people, equally, then you're not a democrat."

It is not moral considerations that I object to - far from it as I think my posts make clear - what I object to is the imposition of a morality based on a claimed superiority that is not established or shared. And where the testing of such estabsliehd sharing is not done by the rule of law as enacted by a represenentative democracy founded on a unversal franchise. No more, no less. If you do not share that view then I have trouble considering your views as in any way democratic.

@ Mark Harrigan:

ok then, leaving aside ancien regime France, the Deep South of he USA and other examples of how lawlessness drove social change and contributed to modern democracy...you do realise, don't you, that without illegal forest protests then there would be no Terrania Creek NP, no NP's on the south coast of NSW? Nor would the Franklin River be running today?

Hmmm?

Anthony Nolan - you're back: hail good fellow well met! and ole king louis - fount of justice in the realm - supported the revolting amercians against the brits & thereby unwittingly did his part to usher in modernity. -a.v.

And a good new year's greeting to you dear alfred! La lotta continua!

Oddly enough I've just started reading Marge Piercy's marvellous history of the revolutionary epoch - 'City of Darkness, City of Light'. Must have missed it first time around. A deeply informed humanist account of those wascally French law breakers. It provides relief from the heat and a break from dodging the psychotically violent poodle I'm minding while the owners are seeking counselling overseas.

@ Anthony - I'm not familiar with the NSW National Parks history so I can't comment. In relation to the Franklyn River controversy - or Gordon below Franklyn - I agree it is an interesting grey area.

However much of the protest and public outrage was perfectly legal. As I recall the Tasmanian government at the time did rush through some somewhat draconian laws to make some aspects of the protest illegal when things reached a crisis point at the last minute. But this was after years of legal, political and campaigning to and fro and no small amount of perfectly legal protest. And some people acted out of conscience to protest and found themselves foul of these laws at the time.

Putting aside the issue that had the proposal gone ahead there would be more renewable electricty now being generated (one of those delicious in hindsight ironies) - I think it is an overstatement to suggest that because the law was brokenby a few protesters that this was intrumental to deciding the issue - I suggest a proper study of the history might show otherwise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy

That ultimately it was public opinion based on legitmate democtratic campaigning and action at the federal politcal level - because of that public controversy - that resulted in the damn not going ahead.

Not the actions of a single individual engaging in might be interpreted as misleading and decpetive conduct - as is alleged to be case with Whitehaven coal

Were those that broke the law at the time justified in their actions because a moral principle in relation to the issue trumped the moral principle of abiding by the rule of law in a univerally franchised democratically elected society? I would argue not - and I would argue that there were many actions within the law that contributed to the result.

But I respect those whose conscience told them otherwise and were willing to accept the consequences. Just not the claim that their moral view put them above the law.

@ Mark Harrigan - the Franklin blockage was the biggest act of civil disobedience in Australian history:

"Throughout January 1983 around fifty people arrived at the blockade each day. The state government made things difficult for the protesters, passing several laws and enforcing special bail conditions for those arrested. Bulldozers were unloaded at the site from a barge under the protection of police. A total of 1,217 arrests were made, many simply for being present at the blockade. Protesters impeded machinery and occupied sites associated with the construction work. Nearly 500 people were imprisoned for breaking the terms of their bail. This caused an overflow of prisons in the region. British botanist David Bellamy was jailed, which gave the dispute international attention. The author John Marsden, after being arrested at the blockade, was placed in the high-security Risdon Prison for a night, as there was nowhere else to hold him."

Wiki-p.

I have to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about.

Bugger this! I'll put my twopenny's worth of sideissue down here ...

Dr Mark,

It would require a serious re-writing of history to imagine that the actions around Vietnam - and particulartly conscription - was some sort of teaparty where the wallopers served the refreshments.

Lots of folks did time, were bashed by cops, bitten by dogs, had their phones tapped, lost their jobs,"came to the attention of special branch", had their close friends reporting on them and the like. Burning one's draft card brought one eye-ball-to-eyeball with the Commonwealth Crimes Act and brought the federal coppers and ASIO down on you, your friends and your families.

This is what the law does - it protects the interests of those with interests.

Peter - the Vietnam issue is a distraction from this debtae but since you raise it

1) I never said or implied it was a tea party.

2) The conscription issue at the time also failed the inversal adult franchise test to which I have referred as it impacted people who were 18 and over - and at the time you weren't allowed to vote until 21. As I recall the end of 72/beginning of 73 was when all that changed - exit from Vietnam, end of conscription, lowering of voting Age

P.S. you say "That is what the law does - it protects the interests of those with interests"

Would you seriously prefer to live without the rule of law? Is it just possible that the rule of law (when properly based on a unversally franchised representative democracy) also protects its citizens from the arbitrary exercise of power?

i nominate daniel ellsberg for spiriting out & disseminating by photocopy classified documents that showed the usa gov't long knew it could not win the war in vietnam & that continuing it would cost more lives than it was admitting publicly. -a.v.

Can't think of anything significant that didn't involve law breaking - banditry and terrorism of the worst order according to the law, judiciary and more or most often less "democratic" processes of the time and place ...

From Gandhi in South Africa and India, Mandela again in South Africa, anyone at all Russian worth knowing - from Solzenytzen to Prince Kroptokin. Yer Gramsci. All the anarchists. The partizans and resistance fighters of WW2. Ho Chi Minh. Che. Fidel. The Pankhursts. Loads of gals. Martin Luther King and the folks around him. The anonymous men and women that fought the evictions of the depression.... Bradley Manning ...

Nope... can't think of anything half noteworthy that didn't involve folks being thrown in goal for it.

Actualy, it might also be worth mentioning the American Revolution...

Peter, I have some sympathy with your views (but really, it isn;t that hard to post in the right spot?)

It seems to me that you, and others, would oppose a law - and therefore think it okay to break it - if you believe that law to be unjust?

If that is a fair representation of your position, and of others on this thread, then I have to find myself in philosophical agreement in principle - but opposed in practice - or at least in this instance.

Because I'm not sure we can rely on individual moral reasoning to arrive at a valid or even acceptable conclusion as to what is a "just" law - or at least not to be so certain about it that it justiffies it being broken. Although I find that to be my position only when one can validlly say that those laws have been formulated by a duly elected parliament subject to universal franchise.

In the case of Vietnam and conscription - I have already pointed out why i think those laws failed the test.

Other examples might be when it is not one individual who concludes that the laws are unjust but many many people - and that those many are so motivated by their conscience that they feel it necessary to accept the consequences of breaking the law as a necessary way of expressing their view that it is unjust. But I think that is a grey area. And generally I find myself more on the side of working within our democratic system to change laws that are thought to be unjust rather than breaking them.

You say "the law is not necessarily a contest of equals". I don't agree. In fact equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our justice system.

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

It's true that sometimes ones ability to prosecute ones owns interests - in civil matters - is not equal and is dependent upon resources. But our criminal justice system aims to provide equality before the law - no doubt it falls short at times - but that is not the basis on which it is predicated.

Spiro Vlachos wrote ; ".... last couple of years since the federal government over the last couple of years has made their operations here in Australia untenable."
Your position in defence of the primary driver for every corporation on the planet is not necessary. It is assumed we all understand the economic pyramid dominated by non living entities.

Spiro Vlachos wrote; "green religion" Now there are a great deal of people with green values that may be offended labeling me that way. Your call, if it works for you that's ok by me.

Spiro Vlachos wrote;"Those that work for and invest in and therefore receive income from businesses are not non living entities" This is very true, well written.

They also stand firmly behind non living entities with unlimited life to 'limit' their liabilities to the community, while leveraging their wealth.

Paul - do you have even the vaguest conception of what being a limited liability company means and why they were created as a form of investment?

Are you suggesting that anyone who invests in a company be resposnible for the liabilities of that company over and above the quantum ofd their investment?

Mark Harrigan wrote; "Are you suggesting that anyone who invests in a company be resposnible for the liabilities of that company over and above the quantum ofd their investment?"
That is entirely up to their personal value system. If these are your values that is ok. As is your right believe that is how others in your 'group' or the wider community, or even the 'centre of political gravity' see them.
The 2012 movie 'Killing them Softly" makes a poignant statement for our decade. New Zealand born director Andrew Dominik left to Brat Pitt's character Jackie Cogan to sum up business in our era. It is a very tough message this generation is putting out and not very palatable for older value systems to hear.

This link may fail, YT often take controversial links down, the US is very sensitive to criticism.
http://youtu.be/sVEeSIf30Tw

Mark Harrigan wrote ;"I'll take it, based on your reply, that you actually have no idea of what limited liability in relation to a company or corporation actually entails."Fine, that is entirely up to you.
You are free to believe my perspective is yours or not, that is ok. Yours is clear to anyone who reads what you write provided they have your 'life conditions' and grasp your values. Indignation regarding investment liability is noted, can the assumption be made this covers management liability for corporate process inclusively?
The attempt to help you grasp the mindset of the 23yo protestor has failed, my apologies.

Very creative :) I especially liked the part about you being considered part of the exhibition yet I am willing to bet you didn't actively set out to deceive anyone in doing so.

I hope you apply your creative activism to addressing climate change - it would be interesting to see it's impact

Bit harsh Paul - particularly in Wilma's case - who from her footprints here would seem to be a pretty decent sort of person wiith sensible things to say.

I don't agree with her in this instance, nor do you. But no reason to tip a bucket. Get a punching bag or one of those twee yank tension balls.

Losing money because of rumour and gossip is all in a morning's work. But what would have happened in order for someone to lose money - they would have to sell at the bottom of the trough and or buy back in as the price rose. No helping some people. Too jittery and skittish for their own good aren't they?

But were they the mums and dads screaming orders to the broker or was it something else altogether - those hair-trigger "inside players" who move their own or someone's cash around on whiffs of rumour and gossip.

I wonder how many trades and traders were involved in the "plummet". I'll try and find out - used to be able to. But my guess is on a few big lumps of just too clever fast money. Shed no tears Ms Wilma. It's what they do for a living every day.. living on their sense of smell and trading gossip.

Wilma, having teenagers myself I can certainly see their frustration, given that my generation has comprehensively failed to halt or even slow the exploitation of finite resources and the consequent progression of climate change (unfortunately many of their peers are oblivious!). I don't blame their generation of activists for considering whatever desperate measures are needed to protect their future. Over many years I've used every legal means to persuade politicians from both major parties to act to protect my children's future. While an occasional skirmish has been won, perhaps delaying our civilisation's use-by date a fraction, I don't think we're anywhere near close to winning the "war".

Every time I see a fully laden coal train rattle past I want to yell out 'STOP, STOP RIGHT NOW'. While I would never lock myself in a box on a coal train line (as a Greenpeace activist did last year) and I would counsel my own children against illegal actions, I can easily envisage a time in the not too distant future where that is their only remaining option. Clive is simply trying to wake everyone up to the need for REAL action NOW to avoid the breakdown of law & order many of us fear.

I have made NO assumptions about you wilma. If you feel you don't share the greed of the Baby Boomers, that is great news. I can only study your comments judging a young idealist, who claims altruistic motivations. Your judgement is that Moylan's actions have been ineffective. I disagree. The very fact that people are talking about it, would indicate that an "effect", has taken place. My study of human nature leads me to believe that the homo sapien has evolved as an opportunist. Profiting from market speculation is just what homo sapiens do. Moylan's individual effort IS arguably a " distraction " to the mundane campaigns against the issues you mention, but homo sapiens become so easily bored with the same old blah, blah, blah. They like something new to arouse their interest in an old story. I present the reality TV / star search phenomenon as evidence. Some one comes out on stage with a new trick, a singing dog, or a a talking frog, and every one is so excited, and has an opinion. Green leaders making "any' kind of statement these days is a refreshing change from the same old political reporting of Abbott's misogyny or budgie smugglers. The comments of any one who triggers any interest in the works of Ghandi, King, Parks or anyone who was brave enough to express an opinion and devise a way of change , is to be welcomed, as we all need to be reminded of the efforts of these great people. Moylan's actions WILL be judged by the courts of this great land, if he has broken the law, and if he is incarcerated, he will drop out of view, because Aussies quickly forget someone who is jailed, even if they agreed with his motives. If Moylan is fined, there will be a campaign to raise funds to pay the fine, and his actions will be remembered by those who contributed funds... well...for a little while at least... until the next singing frog ...or talking dog ... shows up..