> If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking it.

On the contrary, history shows it to be one of the few effective methods.

You're saying that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to go to the back of the bus. The underground railroad was wrong for refusing to comply with fugitive slave laws. Ghandi was wrong for breaking the laws imposed by the British.

We live in a civilized society precisely because many people have disobeyed uncivilized laws. It's actually one of the hallmarks of our civilization that we can draw a distinction between what's right and what's legal.

You've given some good example.

But do you have any data on the downside of that approach?

How many people who disagree with a law will then cause havoc if they broke the law to get what they wanted? Instead of attempting to follow channels?

Well, agree to disagree. I do not think breaking the law, bullying, protesting, etc are good ways to behave.

Another good example is "Boston Tea Party" [1]. It was one of the catalysts of the American Revolution.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

One of the causes of the Revolution was lack of representation and a means to change the law. Now that we have a representative government as a result of that war, one might hope we would use it.

> If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking it.

Is that because you believe it's not likely to be effective, or because you'd rather see an unjust law than an unruly populace?

Edit: ...or some third opinion that I can't think of

A Ian Clarke put it: "It is the responsibility of every citizen to ignore dumb laws."

And I would add: if people didn't ignore dumb laws society would crawl to a halt and collapse.