But once you do it do you have a moral or legal claim on anything anymore? If the same neighbor beats you silly for ruining his party can you then go to the Police or court and ask them for help and justice? Can you say "but he was doing the same or worse"? Can you claim innocence because you unilaterally decided that you are in charge of settling the matter? How exactly do you decide what is the appropriate response?

These are honest questions, I'm genuinely curious how people here see it. Even if I can assume internet opinions are very different from real life ones.

You are always free to take any action you deem appropriate but you will also have to take the consequences. So you can block your employer's warehouse in protest for something but then why be surprised when the time comes to pay for it?

I don't understand your argument. The fact that you and/or your neighbor committed crimes against each other doesn't negate the crimes you have committed. You're both guilty and the police would likely arrest both of you.

That being said, whether your response in the original hypothetical is reasonable is not the same thing as whether it is legal or moral. In all 3 hypothetical actions, the act is illegal. In some cases, a lesser illegal act is justified to prevent a greater legal act but the specifics of that depends on the jurisdiction.

So you can block your employer's warehouse in protest for something but then why be surprised when the time comes to pay for it?

In this case, both Amazon and the employees have violated the law. The law the employees violated was a lesser law than the numerous laws Amazon violated. Amazon is very likely to face a lawsuit in court and lose--the French are extremely protective of labor rights.

My argument is that considering you are entitled to take action as you see fit and justifying it by you not getting results in other ways is NOT a useful or sustainable approach and as such it's not a helpful advice.

From the original poster:

> If you want to make a political statement as ordinary citizen these days you need to do something with real measurable impact.

i would add "maybe refrain from breaking the law". Encouraging people to take matters into their own hands is pretty much the worst advice you could give them. Not only will that not really change much (unless we're talking about a full blown revolution like overturning communism) but it will also put them in trouble. Who do you think will suffer more? Amazon? Or the guys who have to show up at the next employer as "those people that will sabotage your company whenever they consider it appropriate"?

> the numerous laws Amazon violated

But you're not willing to wait for the court to decide the matter.

> Amazon is very likely to face a lawsuit in court and lose--the French are extremely protective of labor rights.

If the expectation is that Amazon will lose anyway and justice will be done then the only reason to break the law and sabotage your workplace is not justice or prevention, it's revenge. You are actually not gaining anything from this but the satisfaction of causing damage. You know what was the perfectly acceptable way of "punishing" Amazon? Quitting and encouraging others to do it. Without enough employees Amazon loses money.

What's your argument supporting? That I'm wrong in saying that people should not take justice into their own hands?