I get that we are to obey our leaders. That's not what I'm asking, though. I'm asking if we debate with authority is that "rebelling" or "disrespecting" them? I'm not talking about debating with them merely to debate. I'm talking about if, whether intentional or unintentional on their part, they make some false accusation against you that may end up in a fine or jail time for you and you claim your innocence, and maybe even lay out HOW you're innocent...is that sin or rebellion against their authority? Some people are of the impression that authority, whether doing their jobs well or not, are to always have the last say in your life and you just have to live with the consequences, whether they're fair or unfair, that they inflict on you and you have no right to dispute it. I'm of the opinion, however, that they are flawed human beings like anybody else and I don't think I should have to suffer unfairly due to their bad judgment.
Well, to be honest, it was hard for me to follow at times. The dialogue between Socrates and Crito was lengthy at times. What I got from Socrates was that people should be willing to put up with whatever their rulers dictate because they willingly live wherever they live and if they don't like how their rulers run things they should move somewhere else. At least, that's the underlying message I got. Which I see as bull because there is nowhere in this world that will run things perfectly, at least from my perspective. I'm sure I won't like how various things are run, even in a place I think is the best place to live. According to Socrates' logic I should then live nowhere.
That's part of the argument, but not the whole. Look again here: Socrates. From these premises I proceed to argue the question whether I ought or ought not to try to escape without the consent of the Athenians: and if I am clearly right in escaping, then I will make the attempt; but if not, I will abstain... But now, since the argument has thus far prevailed, the only question which remains to be considered is, whether we shall do rightly either in escaping or in suffering others to aid in our escape... or whether we shan not do rightly... Socrates and Crito have their 'Socratic dialogue'. If Socrates escapes with Crito, is he doing injustice, wrong, harm, evil, etc., or is he acting justly, good, rightly, etc.? Socrates argues for the former: Socrates. Then we must do no wrong? Crito. Certainly not. Socrates. Nor when injured injure in return, as the many imagine; for we must injure no one at all? Crito. Clearly not. Socrates. Again, Crito, may we do evil? Crito. Surely not, Socrates. Socrates. And what of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many-is that just or not? Crito. Not just. Socrates. For doing evil to another is the same as injuring him? Crito. Very true. The 'willingly live where they live' bit comes next. The point being that Socrates is a citizen of Athens, and in continuing to be a citizen of Athens has consented to its laws, rulers, etc. Why should he now practice sedition because they no longer suit him? If he escapes, then he will be repaying evil for the evil that was paid him. Rather, he is subject to a higher justice (just as the state is), and he is still responsible for how he acts in light of that higher justice even if the state has utterly failed in its responsibilities - that is, has actually practiced injustice, and condemns him. Had Socrates wanted to escape, he could have argued for banishment rather than death, but didn't. Where before he had spoken so fondly and gloriously of Athens, he would now have to take back everything: The Republic, a failure. In other words, Socrates would have lost himself. But, maybe in your situation it would be clearly right to continue to fight back against authority. We'd have to examine the situation of one of these nebulous 'some people' to know.
Ok, let's use a very specific example. You get falsely accused of murdering somebody. You are arrested. You go on trial for murder. When the prosecuting attorney (the state) accuses you of murder, if you claim you are not guilty you are outright debating with them. Are you then guilty of "rebellion" against the state, whom God "put into power?" Should you just let the prosecutor make the false accusation and you then say nothing, or maybe even confess to the murder, despite the fact you really have not done the crime? All so that you are not guilty of having "rebelled against authority?"
Had this been me I would have told the officer that I know the light wasn't red, even though I realize it probably wouldn't have stopped the officer from writing me the ticket. Why would I have told him I know the light wasn't red? Because I would want the officer to be aware that I know he's wrong and doing so would demonstrate that I'm not some schmuck that foolishly believed I had actually run a red light and deserved the ticket.
The same "authority" that issues speeding tickets also provides for legal recourse in the case of contested or possibly unjust charges. That is a moving violation that goes on your record. I would contest before a judge, but never attempt to on the side of the road. We have a legal system that recognizes the potential for human error or even misconduct among it's officers. It's a bureaucratic hassle that's generally worth the effort, as most people don't think they have a chance. That is not a revolt against authority, but taking it up with the officer can be perceived as such.
Even I knew that our current system is setup so that the onus is on the state to prove our guilt. How did a security guard get it so wrong?