That is why the classic notion of civil disobedience under a democratic government asserts both the right to disobey laws which one believes violates fundamental human rights and the responsibility to accept whatever penalties may come from the judicial system as a result of breaking the law.
The bit about resposibility worries me, though. What if a duly elected polity, existing under a rule of law that allows for civil disobediance, simply allows for the brutality of police forces or even, as looks like the case was up here in Canada at the APEC conference, instructs the police on what the polity wants to see done against the protesters. The polity can claim ignorance or "excessive use of force" both of which are insanely hard to prove people who don't want to see it (for one reason or another).
It seems to me that, as a body of political philosophy, anarchism does not recognize the democratic principle that the majority has a right to govern. It accepts liberal principles of individual rights, and thus, minority rights, but not the right of the majority to make laws. Anarchism is liberalism taken to the extremis, denying democratic principles in a way that points out how liberal democracy embodies a tension between liberalism's focus on individual rights and democracy's focuses on equality.
>From what extremely little research on the Net I have done by following the
directions that are part of Chuck0's posts, it seems to me that anarchists
aren't so much interested in concepts of democracy as they are in a massive
distrust of hierarchy for which I can't say as I blame them. I, for one,
don't mind a hierarchy that is tied down chokingly tight with laws,
restrictions, and oversights, but even I can see those are only as good as
the people who elect the government which creates the hierarchy who can then
dismantle the protections set in place. More education and organization
needs to be done before we can destroy the tyranny of capital and replace it
with the tyranny of the proletariat.
Todd