Civil disobedience

What civil disobedience should be and once was:

The actions carried out as a resistance to what is thought to be an unfair authority, law or the actions of the aforementioned authority. Civil disobedience encompasses the actions aimed at breaking such a law or ignoring the "unfair" authority, still, violence is not part of the equation.

What civil disobedience has turned into:

A sad excuse for people to gather together, shout their lungs out, mistreat (or destroy) public property and in reality, do nothing. All of these while they claim that such actions are for "the greater good" (which, for some weird reason, the majority of such people have no idea of what "the greater good" is).

Arguments for and against civil disobedience:

For:

People are believed to be responsible, empathic and rational beings (an utter lie; individuals think, people are just plain dumb) hence, they should be able to express themselves.

Civil Disobedience is one of the best ways to change the way a country is run. (I concede a truth here, but there are other ways (and easier to remember) to change the way a country is run, one of which is Thomas Jefferson's way: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (In this sense, violence is not the end in itself, it is just a means to attain a desired end)).

Against:

Even if a law is unfair, it may be needed to keep a community/country in order, even if it is to a minimum.

Civil disobedience, when directed by inexperienced leaders, may lose its punch, turn into something less organized; have less of a focus on the objective of changing things and becoming brainlessly violent.

Even if civil disobedience takes place, any given government may decide to simply ignore it.