It’s interesting to me that in the medieval period the term outlaw applied to persons who broke the law and were no longer protected by it. They were entirely outside its auspices.
I guess around the enlightenment philosophy changed, and a class of rights were considered unalienable. Society protects itself from law breakers, but even the worst offenders have some protection under law, even if the case law considers their life forfeit.
When Popper posed the paradox of tolerance one imagines he supposed a tolerant society extending tolerance as an unalienable right. I quite agree the social contact resolution to the paradox of tolerance neatly solves the paradox, but I think it introduces interesting questions about what behavior is beyond the pale, and how we as a society resolve what we find acceptable. The extremes are easy, but edge cases are introduced. I hope we assess those cases with our eyes open.
I too grew up in an era of action movies, where the good guy decisively self-defenses the bad guy to death, saves the world, goes home and has marital relations with the prom queen. It’s a powerful story, but ultimately it’s just a story.
Peaceful resistance does work, but there isn’t a single event that achieves change. It has to be an accumulation.
Rosa Park’s arrest didn’t achieve anything “in terms of change”.
Ghandi’s protest fasts didn’t achieve anything “in terms of change”.
When the Baltics had their singing revolutions, there wasn’t a single performance that achieved anything “in terms of change”.
All these were parts of larger efforts of peaceful resistance that culminated in change.
What did Cory Booker’s speech achieve? It’s too early to say. It’s possible it will be part of an accumulation that culminates in measurable results. On the other hand, it’s possible cynicism will poison the resistance and it will achieve nothing. We’ll only know once the history is written.