One of the interesting things about LongShot's most recent comment is (in his last two paragraphs) that he asks whether it is always right to obey the laws of the land.

First, I think (if I understand the reference to Kleinman and Frank) that Kleinman was living in the Netherlands which was occupied by Germany. Hence, he disobeyed laws imposed by a conquering power, not by his own government. But I may be wrong about that.

Second, (and more to the point) Locke makes it clear that a government can overstep its authority and, in effect, become a rebel against the contract itself. As Locke saw it, this automatically dissolved the contract and freed citizens to do as they must. There was good reason for Locke to argue this because at that very time England was preparing to depose James II and to invite William of Orange to assume leadership of England in what became known as the Glorious Revolution.

What is unique in our own Constitution is that it recognizes the possibility that government will overstep its authority but, at the same time, institutionalizes rebellion. That is, it gives the Supreme Court authority to judge that a law is unconstitutional and, hence, to check the power of the legislature or of the administration. The whole system of checks-and-balances is devised to prevent a situation in which the government becomes so far off course that citizens are compelled to disobey.

When we feel that government has overstepped its authority in some significant way, we can disobey (civil disobedience) and hope that our case passes through the various stages of the justice system up to the Supreme Court, where government itself is on trial as much as the disobedient person. That's rather idealistic and it makes one regret that appointments to the Supreme Court have become so political because, unfortunately, the Court (depending on its current makeup) is now likely to support a particular party rather than the Constitution itself.

At any rate, no matter how our Constitution suggests that "systematic rebellion" is possible, it always remains possible that the system could become so corrupt and abusive of our rights and interests that actual rebellion (in terms of disobedience, etc.) was necessary.

I want to return here to the issue of our government's proper scope, conceived of as securing our rights. It is way too easy to imagine this obligation as merely protecting us from foreign powers or direct assaults by our neighbors. Having departed long ago from a thoroughly agrarian economy, we have become extremely diverse in our interests and actions. As a consequence, the ways in which one of our own can affect us negatively have multiplied in subtle ways. The current situation in the Gulf is a good example. The pursuit of wealth by certain individuals has resulted in pollution of Gulf Coastal waters and may destroy both commercial and recreational opportunities in several states. Do people "have a right" to clean coastal waters in which they can fish for shrimp etc? To what degree should government be involved in arbitrating the rights and privileges in a situation like this? And, more importantly, to what degree should government have foresight regarding situations like this and produce laws that may help to prevent situations where rights are violated?

I guess that what I am saying is that, the more complex life becomes in the underlying society, the more complex acts of government have to become in order to foresee and prevent disastrous situations where individuals intrude upon others.