It's becoming increasingly clear that democratic societies are incapable of solving long-range, diffuse ecological problems such as climate change and peak oil, which, although indistinct and nebulous, pose what are potentially existential threats to whole populations. How serious a threat does this pose to the legitimacy of democracy? A related question, or perhaps the same question in different language: the inter-generational transfer of resources which democracies permit is clearly immoral, and profoundly so. At what point does this immorality trump the morality inherent in democratic institutions?

I agree with Thomas that it would be nice if we could identify multiple forms of government that can handle these ecological issues -- it would be much better to be able to make comparative assessments of those forms of governments and their capacities and legitimacies than to contemplate, say, the prospect that no existing form of government may be able to handle these crises or that no combination of current governments may be able to work effectively together to tackle them in concert. But does our ability to assess the impact, if any, of those crises no the legitimacy of our government depends on knowing that "another, non-democratic form of government" has the capacity and realistic prospects to address those issues? On the one hand, knowledge of that sort could cause us to create a comparative assessment on which the urgency and significance of those crises makes that non-democratic form of government preferable to our own. Whether or not that sort of comparison could also motivate an...

In my country, and for at least dozens of years, many people evade taxes, especially in some professional groups. Tax evasion is recognized as a common behavior, even if accepted only in private (or at least not too public) conversations. There are some rough calculations about how big tax evasion is. This has had many consequences: a) Tax rates are a bit higher than they would be if there were no evasion; b) Unions agree on salaries knowing that their members will have to pay for these hight tax rates or, on the contrary, that they will be able to evade taxes; c) Professionals charge for their services knowing that they will be able to evade taxes; d) Some professionals and corporations evade taxes because, if they wouldn't, they wouldn't be able to compete with low prices; e) People who do not evade taxes, although they could, know that many other people do, and they do not evade either because they think that is the right thing to do, or because they are affraid that they are caught. Do you think...

Even though determining exactly when one should or should not obeylawful authority is complicated, nothing that you describe here strikesme as a moral reason to disobey. For a richly-nuanceddiscussion of breaking the law for moral reasons, see Henry DavidThoreau's classic 19th century essay "Civil Disobedience," whichaddresses Thoreau's moral opposition to legalizez slavery in America,his desire not to be an "agent of injustice to another," and and hisdecision not to pay several types of taxes. There are many other fascinating and relevant texts of political philosophy; Socrates's decision not to escape his execution is an especially interesting text to pair with Thoreau -- see Plato's Crito . Mybasic point would is that there is a strong moral obligation to obeylaws, and that none of the economica or social facts you mention raisethe sorts of moral issues that might override that obligation.Theoreau's desire to resist lawful slavery might do this; the desire tocompete in a capitalist...

Can suicide be a way of political resistance? I am especially interested in the political situation at the West Bank, so when you answer in this context, please....

People who commit suicide can surely do so with the intention ofprovoking political change, including resisting tyranny or injustice. Likewise, those affected by the suicide of others can surely beprovoked to political action by that act, including action that servesto fight tyranny or injustice. However, this seems to me a perilous strategy of politicalresistance, and not just because it involves death. I suspect thatindividual acts of suicide are difficult to structure effectively aspolitical acts: because suicide often baffles those affected the mostby them, the odds of any particular suicide having the intended effectlook to be rather low. The consequences of acts of mass suicide alsoseem difficult to predict, in part because media and governments willsurely subject those acts to interpretive "spin" that will inevitablyserve coroporate or governmental interests rather than those of thereistance group. In sum, death in general and suicide inparticular strike me as such culturally complex...