Is Rawls concept of “equal liberties” (p. 327, although not explicitly defined) interchangeable with “fundamental rights”?
A pragmatic question: after the Mexican presidential election of 2006, the “runner-up” candidate decided that he had lost due to fraud, and called out to his supporters to set up a camp in one of Mexico City’s main (and iconic) avenues for a period of almost two months, which caused the collapse of many business and economic activity in the zone. Prior to the election, he, and -we might say- the majority of the citizens, urged for an electoral reform, which didn’t occur for reasons you may as well deduct (reluctancy of the parties). Could such an action fall into the category of civil disobedience? If so, will this suffice to render it “legitimate” towards the losses of thousands?