+busheybushdawg If you like this you should see his Buckley interview from a few years before this I think. He's absolutely animated and quick on the draw because Buckley throws so much conservative bullshit out all at once he has to run around like the Companion Cavalry to keep him honest on every front.
I like this video of Noam particularly, because I think he's expressing quite a controversial opinion. He said it was legal to by force stop government action if its to stop violence. Its very refreshing to me to hear this coming from someone so respected and highly regarded.
"very refreshing to me to hear this coming from someone so respected and highly regarded." - which does not make some piece of sophistry any more true; it only goes to show, how real of an issue confirmation bias really is. If a thing can be "legal" that breaks law, then everything and nothing is legal; as "legal" pertains to that which is in accordance to law ( - it roots back to "lex, legis" (lat.) which meant - guess what?! ... law!) -- illegal that which violates a law. (not arguing semantics here... just very, very self-evident facts; almost tautologies) Chomsky is guilty of a massive contradiction here, and no amount of applause can make up for how utterly stupid such a statement really is. I like Chomsky; there are passages of his that are just brilliantly on point. But this....
@@PyrrhoVonHyperborea What a load of semantic bullshit! Chomsky gives clear examples of what might be legal, not the least of which is international legal.
What makes Noam think that he gets to be the judge of what and what is not a "criminal act"? That leaves open the possibility of any random ideology to be used to condemn whatever act they choose as criminal.
"He's not saying that just he does." - that just makes it *even worse.* To be implying that everyone would have to agree with his contradictory stance, was pure hubris. He's not all-knowing (and not the spokesperson of the entirety of man), and he cannot deem his morals universal, and his concept of legality exceed (and contradict) the code of law (that double-think...) - at least not w/o creating a massive contradiction. He does think so; others may as well; and then others will disagree. If legal (-> lex, legis (lat) = "law") is uncoupled from the need for proper law, all that remains is anarchy and mayhem, and he who does not see a problem with that, is unfit to be an adviser for anything political, as he will not help in creating anything better in place of the law he is protesting. - and those who applaud this sophistry are just morons; sorry to tell you! Btw.: I don't even disagree with Chomsky, usually; his criticism of American politics are usually spot on!... but what he says about is just outright stupid! PS: "Pietzsche"? - don tell me that's in reference to "Nietzsche". Because he'd have a field day with that sort of nonsense, as well!
Well you could start by upholding the state to the very standards it claims to uphold which it uses to monopolise violence. There are strict legal standards for terrorism and aggression which states use to prosecute others while breaking themselves on a regular basis.
He is using the code of domestic criminal law as a bar by which to judge behaviour on the international stage. This is made clearer in the full interview. Part of the point he makes is that powerful states often dispense with the strictures of its own laws, as well as international law, in its dealings in foreign affairs.
@@mace3988 , " He is using the code of domestic criminal law as a bar by which to judge behaviour on the international stage " You do know that Chomsky has NEVER spent a single day of his life in Law School-Right??? SMH
If the state twists the law that it created, or obfuscates the old laws or ignores pre existing ones in order to commit an illegal act that would benefit the state, we have a crime committed by a separate class in accordance with their wants not their needs.
It still amazes me that there are still so many people that trust politicians, and trust their government. If you can't be critical towards your government and challenge their actions, than your nothing more than a slave, a slave to your country. Second thing, that really amazes me is, that people a so fond about the country they are born in and praise their nationality and country as some kind of god. Why on earth should I be proud for a country that I'm unwillingly born in, without me asking for it. So because of this accident I have to be proud of this country and worship it!? A country that enslaves me with taxes. A country that decides things I don't like. And I should be proud of it????
Son Of Mom I believe John Locke addressed the question of implied consent. He called it tacit consent. If you use resources provided by the state, you've consented to abide by its law. That's his theory, not what I think
But where would we end up if everyone induvidually defined for themselves what's legal and what's not? You got to have some kind of framework one way or another isn't it?
+maxwell10206 I experienced 'God' on LSD. Transcendent consciousness transcending the egoic self, merging with the intercennectness of nature and the cosmos as a whole
Franz1987 no your brain was just having a spasm attack. I should try it but I bet everyone who has done it exaggerates their experience. Just like sex lol
I find that point quite odd, when it moves to the state violating international law then I think it makes some sense but before he gets to that point he doesn't seem to provide any basis to call what the state is doing 'illegal' other than thinking it's morally wrong, which is a separate issue
is it a separate issue? why should the state decide on what is morally right or wrong? I think his example of derailing ammunition trains highlights his point perfectly.
@@spacejazz6272 By conflating legality and morality you're basically saying the state does decide what's morally right or wrong though seeing as laws are created by the state
@@discodave4500 , The fact that you have nothing better to respond with than merely repeating my own words, shows how lacking you really are. What else you got junior??
_"one does not necessarily"_ (why the weasel word?) _"allow the state to define, what is legal"_ -- I think I have never heard a dumber sentence out of the mouth of this otherwise brilliant man. I guess the closer one gets to the quasi religious convictions of a person, the less rational they become... but I'll explain in a sec... _"[...] now the state has the power to enforce a certain __*__concept_*_ of what is legal, but power doesn't imply justice!"_ For the uneducated: legal is that, which is in accordance to the law; the word roots back to "lex, legis" (lat) which, unsurprisingly, meant "law". The legality is thus given by the law (text), provided for by the state, and enforced by it as well. To act as if the word "legality" had any meaning outside the context of law is, frankly, retarded, as taking things out of their context makes them nonsensical. You may _feel_ like there was some illegality to some action of the state; but if it's in accordance to the law, how could it be? - it's a blatant contradiction! Yes, might _does not make right;_ but then again, w/o might, there is no right at all, but only chaos (or harmless inaptitude to do anything against the interests of another; he who has no teeth, cannot bite . . .). Look at how the English legal system (and thus the amerticanwith it, which was derived from the former) came about; it was the court of the king, he who had the might, to rectify things as he deemed good (or allowed), travelling around the country, to fulfill an urgent need for legal revision, and thus won him over the loyalty of the people. -- or look at the romans and their formular-process (which I like much more than the english example; there are many states today, that rather cling on to the roman tradition of law, than the English one, for good, obvious reasons) What N.Chomsky seems to believe [in], and that w/o second-guessing it, w/o even seeing that it was a believe, is the idea of a natural law... but there is no such thing. In nature everything happens that can happen -- force being it's only trading chip; fairness does not exist, unless the group ("state") enforces something of that sort against the individual (and it may often do so in a rather -- unfair manner). But even if that happens, it's the instincts of a pack-animal, designed for roughly getting along with one another, for enjoying the benefits of doing everything in a group (spreading the risk and work, enhancing chances of survival) - that brings this about, not some benign concept of good that was hard-coded into the world; there is no such thing! And before some power forces some law to become a reality, there is no law; and w/o that brutal beginning, no justice, however benign or dubious it may be, will be enforced. The whole babble about "enforce a certain *concept* of it" is creating a diversion, to pull wool over the eyes of the critical beholder. There is no unspecific concept of legality; only specific ones, that are uncritical of themselves, being propagated by very self-important people who deem their values (and thus themselves) infallible -- who thus deem their specific concepts unspecific and [thus] _globally true._ I like Chomsky... but that babble was a disgrace. Had to facepalm really hard... more even than about a certain grammar . . . EDIT: "Lex, legis" it was (see above); had to correct that; totally screwed up the genitiv.
0:30 "because it is legal and proper and should be done" - legal by what standard? - please guide me to the law in question that legalizes such behavior, or excuses it? You may talk all day about what you deem proper and what should be done, and chances are, we'd agree on most of these points. But if you mix in the word "legal" to justify your illegal acts, you are lying to yourself and others. If you are at odds with a law, you don't get to weasel your way out of it with some sophistry that claims, the law itself was lawless, and your action was actually legal, as that creates a blatant contradiction! You may argue, that it _should_ be legal, what you propose (should have, could have, would have... don't you love the subjunctive?) -- and if you garner enough support for that, maybe it might actually *become* law by means of political self-determination of a people within a democratic system. But at the end of the day, that law, just as the one you defied earlier, has to be measured by how self-consistent it is, and how consistent it is with other laws; and chances has it (how humble, to phrase that this way...), that when anarchistic daydreams become common law, society will quickly fall apart; or rather: that this marks the breaking point where it already did disassemble. As human beings we may sometimes feel, as if an illegal act is necessary and good; and again, from a case by case basis, I may actually agree with that sentiment. But to say it was thus "legal" is a topsy-turvy _logic_ that isn't even self-consistent. Please be real!
0:38 "just as it's proper to violate traffic ordinance, in order to prevent a murder" - interesting, that you do use the word "legal" in places where it does not belong, and do not use it in places that actually qualify for it's usage; for preventing a criminal act, a crime as law itself defines it, like said murder, you are allowed some transgressions by most codes of law; as such they are not illegal, but excused, *by law* ... not just "proper"! Very sad to see this level of sophistry at work. It does not speak well of his character, despite what "noble" ideal he may be pursuing with this inconsistent, fallacious babble!
1:01 - " *authorities* define as civil disobedience" - not law; but people. If something is in violation of a law, it is already illegal, and does not need to be classified as "civil disobedience" first to _unfairly_ be brought under the banner of illegality. In fact, the term civil disobedience does not stem from those who condemn it, as they don't need a special term to defy some actions they want to suppress and eradicate (it would rather hurt their interests to even be singling it out in such a way) -- but rather [it stems] from the delinquents in question and those who *defend* their actions. Now -- is derailing a train even an act of civil disobedience? - the term "civil" is there, for a reason; it regards peaceful means of protest, that do not harm anybody (or any property...). And how much sympathy I may have to oppose an unjust war with unlawful means, vandalism will not and can not, in any functioning society, be deemed a lawful ("legal") act... Same for the _Boston Tea Party._ (i) That was not _civil_ disobedience (not in that absurd sense being propose here, that it was supposedly "legal" - but that doesn't exist anyway), it was an act of vandalism; to fight an ill that may (or may not) be worthy to be fought, but unlawful non the less. Damaging someone else's property cannot be deemed legal (if the ownership rights have been acquired lawfully); you don't need to be a capitalist or libertarian to understand this principle; common sense should be sufficient! - and that's coming from a person (me), that actually thinks, that occasional redistribution of wealth was a necessary thing to do, to keep a society stable for many more generations to come. great riches are immoral, as they destroy the natural balance between citizen and citizen, and with it the basis of democracy. If we look into it even more critically, we'll discover, that civil disobedience actually needs illegality to even qualify as such. Civil disobedience is the willful/conscious act of transgressing a law (-> illegality) in order to oppose or protest an ill; most notably that [perceived] ill that is the law in question. E.g. protesting the war by refusing to sign up for the draft, join the army, become as soldier (also a good example: evading the tax on salt, by making a big ceremony out of wandering to the beach and getting some free salt yourself; as Ghandi did!). As the latter hurts no-one, and no-one's property, is is civ.disob.! ... but, o/c that comes at a price, which many people are unwilling to pay; if that price is fair or not is up for debate -- if it is "legal" however is not. Let's be realistic and factual, please! - - - (i) strictly speaking just an informal declaration of war; if a cold war, or a hot one, remained to be seen; until the official declaration of war, i.e. the "Declaration of Independence". An unlawful act, by any means! - disobedient? - you can bet on that!... but not "civil", as war never is; don't kid yourself!
many many more attempts to say the same thing with different words. But sophistry remains sophistry, no matter how much mental gymnastics you muster, or holier-than-thou you may think to be (be that in terms of religion, or it's younger offspring, _universal morale_ ); it is what it is. Morale is a very unsafe ground to build any state on, anyway. To rely on such hopes and expectancies is to build on sand. Rather read some political theory, that acknowledges necessities such as strict obedience to the law; you may fine-tune that along the way, by pardoning those who carry out acts of civil disobedience to protest some real nuisance, if you happen to change the law accordingly. - you may even praise them as heroes for a better tomorrow. But if you cannot live up to Kant's categorical imperative, you are not contributing anything constructive to the debate.
I think in this or another video NC may be referring to international law when he calls acts of civil disobedience against the USA "legal". I suppose since laws differ at the local, state, federal, and international level, maybe what is "legal" is not so straightforward after all? Cheers
Never knew Chomsky was such a handsome young dude especially with those hipster spectacles
+busheybushdawg If you like this you should see his Buckley interview from a few years before this I think. He's absolutely animated and quick on the draw because Buckley throws so much conservative bullshit out all at once he has to run around like the Companion Cavalry to keep him honest on every front.
Seen it. Love it.
certainly he was young at some point of his life
back then everybody was rocking them malcom x glasses
I still wear some
so they were just talking one person in french and one person in english? holy shit
This makes me immediately think of protesters shutting the valve on pipelines.
I like this video of Noam particularly, because I think he's expressing quite a controversial opinion. He said it was legal to by force stop government action if its to stop violence. Its very refreshing to me to hear this coming from someone so respected and highly regarded.
"very refreshing to me to hear this coming from someone so respected and highly regarded." - which does not make some piece of sophistry any more true; it only goes to show, how real of an issue confirmation bias really is.
If a thing can be "legal" that breaks law, then everything and nothing is legal; as "legal" pertains to that which is in accordance to law ( - it roots back to "lex, legis" (lat.) which meant - guess what?! ... law!) -- illegal that which violates a law. (not arguing semantics here... just very, very self-evident facts; almost tautologies)
Chomsky is guilty of a massive contradiction here, and no amount of applause can make up for how utterly stupid such a statement really is.
I like Chomsky; there are passages of his that are just brilliantly on point. But this....
@@PyrrhoVonHyperborea What a load of semantic bullshit! Chomsky gives clear examples of what might be legal, not the least of which is international legal.
@@PyrrhoVonHyperborea i didn’t understand a word of that.
This is unrelated but Chomsky is really cute
What makes Noam think that he gets to be the judge of what and what is not a "criminal act"?
That leaves open the possibility of any random ideology to be used to condemn whatever act they choose as criminal.
He's not saying that just he does.
"He's not saying that just he does." - that just makes it *even worse.*
To be implying that everyone would have to agree with his contradictory stance, was pure hubris. He's not all-knowing (and not the spokesperson of the entirety of man), and he cannot deem his morals universal, and his concept of legality exceed (and contradict) the code of law (that double-think...) - at least not w/o creating a massive contradiction.
He does think so; others may as well; and then others will disagree.
If legal (-> lex, legis (lat) = "law") is uncoupled from the need for proper law, all that remains is anarchy and mayhem, and he who does not see a problem with that, is unfit to be an adviser for anything political, as he will not help in creating anything better in place of the law he is protesting. - and those who applaud this sophistry are just morons; sorry to tell you!
Btw.: I don't even disagree with Chomsky, usually; his criticism of American politics are usually spot on!... but what he says about is just outright stupid!
PS: "Pietzsche"? - don tell me that's in reference to "Nietzsche". Because he'd have a field day with that sort of nonsense, as well!
Well you could start by upholding the state to the very standards it claims to uphold which it uses to monopolise violence. There are strict legal standards for terrorism and aggression which states use to prosecute others while breaking themselves on a regular basis.
He is using the code of domestic criminal law as a bar by which to judge behaviour on the international stage. This is made clearer in the full interview. Part of the point he makes is that powerful states often dispense with the strictures of its own laws, as well as international law, in its dealings in foreign affairs.
@@mace3988 ,
" He is using the code of domestic criminal law as a bar by which to judge behaviour on the international stage "
You do know that Chomsky has NEVER spent a single day of his life in Law School-Right??? SMH
If the state twists the law that it created, or obfuscates the old laws or ignores pre existing ones in order to commit an illegal act that would benefit the state, we have a crime committed by a separate class in accordance with their wants not their needs.
this guy is the fuckin truth, has been for many years. hope restored...
This reminds me on Snowden and documents leak case.
Jury nullification. Know it. Use it.
What's with the back-and-forth between French and English?
the other guy is Michel Foucault
I know but it's weird hearing him speak French and then Chomsky respond in English. I guess he understands it, just doesn't speak it.
In the beginning of the debate, Foucault said he would respond in French because his English wasn't up to par.
Ech of them understood the other's language but didn't feel comfortable using it, so they decided to talk in their native languages.
gonna be helpful in a few years time when rishi sunak goes full in on his beliefs
It still amazes me that there are still so many people that trust politicians, and trust their government.
If you can't be critical towards your government and challenge their actions, than your nothing more than a slave, a slave to your country.
Second thing, that really amazes me is, that people a so fond about the country they are born in and praise their nationality and country as some kind of god.
Why on earth should I be proud for a country that I'm unwillingly born in, without me asking for it. So because of this accident I have to be proud of this country and worship it!? A country that enslaves me with taxes. A country that decides things I don't like. And I should be proud of it????
Son Of Mom I believe John Locke addressed the question of implied consent.
He called it tacit consent. If you use resources provided by the state, you've consented to abide by its law. That's his theory, not what I think
But where would we end up if everyone induvidually defined for themselves what's legal and what's not? You got to have some kind of framework one way or another isn't it?
2021
I didn't believe in God until I met him. And I just met him.
+maxwell10206 I experienced 'God' on LSD. Transcendent consciousness transcending the egoic self, merging with the intercennectness of nature and the cosmos as a whole
Franz1987 no your brain was just having a spasm attack. I should try it but I bet everyone who has done it exaggerates their experience. Just like sex lol
I find that point quite odd, when it moves to the state violating international law then I think it makes some sense but before he gets to that point he doesn't seem to provide any basis to call what the state is doing 'illegal' other than thinking it's morally wrong, which is a separate issue
is it a separate issue? why should the state decide on what is morally right or wrong? I think his example of derailing ammunition trains highlights his point perfectly.
@@spacejazz6272 By conflating legality and morality you're basically saying the state does decide what's morally right or wrong though seeing as laws are created by the state
He did not understand the question
Got it. So refusing to pay taxes is justified and a proper response. Hurray!!! Never paying taxes again.
Nice. It’s relative?? A post modern moment here. Indeed! I agree with Chomsky!
That's nonsense.
Has Chomsky ever spent a night in jail for civil disobedience or is he all talk?
He was arrested for it during the Vietnam war
More details?
He talks about it here chomsky.info/19671207/
If you Google 'chomsky arrested vietnam' or something you'll find a bunch of things that mention it
I must have missed the part in Chomsky's BIO where he graduated from Law School, himself! SMH
You’re completely jealous of him cause you’re not even smart. I’m pretty sure you didn’t graduate kindergarten.
@@discodave4500 ,
Sorry you yourself can't face reality kiddo...
@@mck1972 sorry but you can’t face reality my cupcake
@@discodave4500 ,
The fact that you have nothing better to respond with than merely repeating my own words, shows how lacking you really are.
What else you got junior??
@@mck1972 sorry you can’t face reality junior
His mannerisms are so dorky
_"one does not necessarily"_ (why the weasel word?) _"allow the state to define, what is legal"_ -- I think I have never heard a dumber sentence out of the mouth of this otherwise brilliant man. I guess the closer one gets to the quasi religious convictions of a person, the less rational they become... but I'll explain in a sec...
_"[...] now the state has the power to enforce a certain __*__concept_*_ of what is legal, but power doesn't imply justice!"_
For the uneducated: legal is that, which is in accordance to the law; the word roots back to "lex, legis" (lat) which, unsurprisingly, meant "law". The legality is thus given by the law (text), provided for by the state, and enforced by it as well. To act as if the word "legality" had any meaning outside the context of law is, frankly, retarded, as taking things out of their context makes them nonsensical.
You may _feel_ like there was some illegality to some action of the state; but if it's in accordance to the law, how could it be? - it's a blatant contradiction!
Yes, might _does not make right;_ but then again, w/o might, there is no right at all, but only chaos (or harmless inaptitude to do anything against the interests of another; he who has no teeth, cannot bite . . .). Look at how the English legal system (and thus the amerticanwith it, which was derived from the former) came about; it was the court of the king, he who had the might, to rectify things as he deemed good (or allowed), travelling around the country, to fulfill an urgent need for legal revision, and thus won him over the loyalty of the people. -- or look at the romans and their formular-process (which I like much more than the english example; there are many states today, that rather cling on to the roman tradition of law, than the English one, for good, obvious reasons)
What N.Chomsky seems to believe [in], and that w/o second-guessing it, w/o even seeing that it was a believe, is the idea of a natural law... but there is no such thing. In nature everything happens that can happen -- force being it's only trading chip; fairness does not exist, unless the group ("state") enforces something of that sort against the individual (and it may often do so in a rather -- unfair manner). But even if that happens, it's the instincts of a pack-animal, designed for roughly getting along with one another, for enjoying the benefits of doing everything in a group (spreading the risk and work, enhancing chances of survival) - that brings this about, not some benign concept of good that was hard-coded into the world; there is no such thing! And before some power forces some law to become a reality, there is no law; and w/o that brutal beginning, no justice, however benign or dubious it may be, will be enforced. The whole babble about "enforce a certain *concept* of it" is creating a diversion, to pull wool over the eyes of the critical beholder. There is no unspecific concept of legality; only specific ones, that are uncritical of themselves, being propagated by very self-important people who deem their values (and thus themselves) infallible -- who thus deem their specific concepts unspecific and [thus] _globally true._
I like Chomsky... but that babble was a disgrace. Had to facepalm really hard... more even than about a certain grammar . . .
EDIT: "Lex, legis" it was (see above); had to correct that; totally screwed up the genitiv.
0:30 "because it is legal and proper and should be done" - legal by what standard? - please guide me to the law in question that legalizes such behavior, or excuses it?
You may talk all day about what you deem proper and what should be done, and chances are, we'd agree on most of these points. But if you mix in the word "legal" to justify your illegal acts, you are lying to yourself and others. If you are at odds with a law, you don't get to weasel your way out of it with some sophistry that claims, the law itself was lawless, and your action was actually legal, as that creates a blatant contradiction! You may argue, that it _should_ be legal, what you propose (should have, could have, would have... don't you love the subjunctive?) -- and if you garner enough support for that, maybe it might actually *become* law by means of political self-determination of a people within a democratic system. But at the end of the day, that law, just as the one you defied earlier, has to be measured by how self-consistent it is, and how consistent it is with other laws; and chances has it (how humble, to phrase that this way...), that when anarchistic daydreams become common law, society will quickly fall apart; or rather: that this marks the breaking point where it already did disassemble.
As human beings we may sometimes feel, as if an illegal act is necessary and good; and again, from a case by case basis, I may actually agree with that sentiment. But to say it was thus "legal" is a topsy-turvy _logic_ that isn't even self-consistent. Please be real!
0:38 "just as it's proper to violate traffic ordinance, in order to prevent a murder" - interesting, that you do use the word "legal" in places where it does not belong, and do not use it in places that actually qualify for it's usage; for preventing a criminal act, a crime as law itself defines it, like said murder, you are allowed some transgressions by most codes of law; as such they are not illegal, but excused, *by law* ... not just "proper"!
Very sad to see this level of sophistry at work. It does not speak well of his character, despite what "noble" ideal he may be pursuing with this inconsistent, fallacious babble!
1:01 -
" *authorities* define as civil disobedience" - not law; but people. If something is in violation of a law, it is already illegal, and does not need to be classified as "civil disobedience" first to _unfairly_ be brought under the banner of illegality. In fact, the term civil disobedience does not stem from those who condemn it, as they don't need a special term to defy some actions they want to suppress and eradicate (it would rather hurt their interests to even be singling it out in such a way) -- but rather [it stems] from the delinquents in question and those who *defend* their actions.
Now -- is derailing a train even an act of civil disobedience? - the term "civil" is there, for a reason; it regards peaceful means of protest, that do not harm anybody (or any property...). And how much sympathy I may have to oppose an unjust war with unlawful means, vandalism will not and can not, in any functioning society, be deemed a lawful ("legal") act...
Same for the _Boston Tea Party._ (i) That was not _civil_ disobedience (not in that absurd sense being propose here, that it was supposedly "legal" - but that doesn't exist anyway), it was an act of vandalism; to fight an ill that may (or may not) be worthy to be fought, but unlawful non the less.
Damaging someone else's property cannot be deemed legal (if the ownership rights have been acquired lawfully); you don't need to be a capitalist or libertarian to understand this principle; common sense should be sufficient! - and that's coming from a person (me), that actually thinks, that occasional redistribution of wealth was a necessary thing to do, to keep a society stable for many more generations to come. great riches are immoral, as they destroy the natural balance between citizen and citizen, and with it the basis of democracy.
If we look into it even more critically, we'll discover, that civil disobedience actually needs illegality to even qualify as such. Civil disobedience is the willful/conscious act of transgressing a law (-> illegality) in order to oppose or protest an ill; most notably that [perceived] ill that is the law in question. E.g. protesting the war by refusing to sign up for the draft, join the army, become as soldier (also a good example: evading the tax on salt, by making a big ceremony out of wandering to the beach and getting some free salt yourself; as Ghandi did!). As the latter hurts no-one, and no-one's property, is is civ.disob.! ... but, o/c that comes at a price, which many people are unwilling to pay; if that price is fair or not is up for debate -- if it is "legal" however is not. Let's be realistic and factual, please!
- - -
(i) strictly speaking just an informal declaration of war; if a cold war, or a hot one, remained to be seen; until the official declaration of war, i.e. the "Declaration of Independence". An unlawful act, by any means! - disobedient? - you can bet on that!... but not "civil", as war never is; don't kid yourself!
many many more attempts to say the same thing with different words. But sophistry remains sophistry, no matter how much mental gymnastics you muster, or holier-than-thou you may think to be (be that in terms of religion, or it's younger offspring, _universal morale_ ); it is what it is.
Morale is a very unsafe ground to build any state on, anyway. To rely on such hopes and expectancies is to build on sand. Rather read some political theory, that acknowledges necessities such as strict obedience to the law; you may fine-tune that along the way, by pardoning those who carry out acts of civil disobedience to protest some real nuisance, if you happen to change the law accordingly. - you may even praise them as heroes for a better tomorrow. But if you cannot live up to Kant's categorical imperative, you are not contributing anything constructive to the debate.
I think in this or another video NC may be referring to international law when he calls acts of civil disobedience against the USA "legal". I suppose since laws differ at the local, state, federal, and international level, maybe what is "legal" is not so straightforward after all? Cheers