[dynamichype]

One of the arguments made against repealing Jim Crow laws was the harm that would come to business owners in terms of infrastructure and other spending. There were many such businesses whose owners were not racist but who had invested in locations and buildings out of innocent compliance with the law and the demographic business climate it created. The judicial system makes accomodations for parenthood but it does not refuse to punish parents despite the fact that it is absolutely certain that such punishments will be detrimental to the child. By definition, disruptive social change is disruptive and punishment is punative. Surely that no collatoral innocents be harmed ever is too high a standard that favors both the status quo and protects bad actors?

[sixtofour]

"Surely that no collatoral innocents be harmed ever is too high a standard ..."

When we're talking about independent outlaw actors, as opposed to the law and justice that you invoke in your response, then no, I don't think it's too high a standard.

[dynamichype]

Just to have you elaborate then: you are against all forms of civil disobedience that cause harm? Is it that you believe movements can succeed without such tactics (e.g. that the civil rights movement would have succeeded without the race riots and that the earlier mill rights movements would have succeeded without violence) or that you are against all such social change?

[sixtofour]

"you are against all forms of civil disobedience that cause harm?"

Mostly, but not absolutely. Unnecessarily exposing the existence and whereabouts of someone's kids for what amounts to little more than vandalism and tagging, yes.