As Thomas Jefferson famously remarked, rebellion “is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” In doses of reasonable size, that is, they are “a good thing.” Before the Continental Congress ratified the United States Constitution, this mid-forties Virginian wrote that peculiar comment in a correspondence to the man behind the founding document, James Madison. Reference to rebellion immediately brings conflicting ideas to mind. I think about the courageous revolutionaries who fought Britain in the names of liberty and freedom. Then I recall images of pitchforks and scary men with bald heads and hateful tattoos. Fundamentally, though, the topics of justice and equality are interconnected with this dilemma over justifying rebellion. In order to illustrate the divide, I would like to discuss Crito and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Despite being historically separated, Plato and Martin Luther King Jr. shared a similar high regard for respecting law. However, this “neutral element” that King understood time as set apart their stances concerning revolt. As a member of a minority group in a segregated society, King experienced discrimination ten times worse than that which gadfly philosophers like Socrates received in ancient Athens. Embittered by centuries of inequality, King found rebellion honorable with consideration to the prejudice of law and practice in place; Plato could never condone large-scale rebellion, an action of evil to counteract evil.

Before further distinguishing their point of views, I would like to quickly elaborate on the condition contained within the argument I have started to propose. Plato acknowledges the reason in proving “ill commands illegitimate” yet values the standing of law above the fantasies of man. This is to say that there is honor and practicality in arguing against unfair rules when enough evidence supports such behavior; though under their circumstance, as aged philosophers in a reasonably progressive state, an attempt to escape incarceration would be ridiculous, against individual plausibility. In other words, at another time, a different group of people could act rebelliously in a morally reasonable way. With this said, what were the conditions that surrounded the incarceration of Socrates in Crito?

Plato previously expressed the grounds for indicting Socrates in Apology. Socrates supposedly corrupted the innocence of the polis by instructing young persons in ethics and theory and proclaiming existent questionable gods. Additionally, what I would contend the factor which definitively resulted in sentencing, Socrates used a savvy, eloquent speaking style. This rhetoric, to ordinary Athenians, seemed like a deceitful tactic; those men whom accused Socrates, on the other hand, spoke plainly. While clearly less profound, the accusers were successful in criminalizing the behavior of Socrates. At 70 years old this complex man was placed in prison to await death.

Martin Luther King, Jr. represented the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and was present in Birmingham, Alabama in order to mobilize a non-violent action campaign against the discriminatory power structure there if necessary, men whom “were dedicated to the maintenance of the status quo.” Despite protesting in a legally appropriate manner, invoking their rights to assemble and speak publicly, Dr. King and others were detained to a jail cell. While being held, this leader of the Civil Rights Movement expressed to fellow clergymen his disappointment in their lack of support. After 8 days, President John F. Kennedy intervened due to public outrage.

What differentiated these situations, and ultimately led Plato and King to separate stations regarding their approval of revolt, was precedent. Before the birth of Christ, advancements in science, and the beginning of imperialism, things were quite different for philosophers. Their services were perceived insignificant during this time. Republican government, what seed Socrates and Plato envisioned in Republic, bloomed during the European Enlightenment into a feasible reality. Thomas Jefferson and peers set a standard, which the French enforced in a more drastic manner years later, and through independence movements, other nations have aligned with successively. By the twentieth century, centuries of mentors had employed rebellion as a tool to counteract injustice. From these ample examples, Martin Luther King, Jr. justified rebellion. King explained this civil disobedient methodology accordingly.

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.

King claimed that there is indeed “a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Yet in only advanced democracies, this imperative exists. Back thousands of years, you could never apply the same logic. Plato would disagree with the claim that rebellion could ever be a good thing inside Greece. Athens valued strong authority in ways that would suppress the revolt about which Jefferson spoke, and prevented the vision expressed in Republic from becoming actuality. Socrates understood this limitation, and therefore, decided to accept punishment, despite being innocent. Absolutely essential to this debate is the establishment of precedent. In the Revolutionary War, rebellion became a starting point in a justice experiment.

Born in this country, King valued the idea that the government gains power from the consent of ordinary people. This is a flagship phenomenon ingrained into American society like none other. People tolerate, even appreciate disagreement in the United States of America. And over time, with the growth of mainstream media, this acceptance of disagreement has become inherent. I fall in line with the argument offered by Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for this reason. I am educated to value freedom of speech; I support the ability to express outrage over questionable law; and I think that society in 2015 accepts the power of the press to push pieces of policy onto the agenda.

Rebellion means something completely different today than what it meant during the days of Plato and Jefferson. We are less militant in demonstrating agitation. Instead we use alternative means, like massive social media campaigns, to alter living standards and influence change. Thus rebellion is a good thing. Rebellion heals illness on planet Earth, and ensures the stability of government. We must acknowledge, however, that the acceptable form of revolution has changed. I guarantee, still, its success rate has remained consistent.