Civil Disobedience
Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” is an idea that seems like a simple answer to a complex problem. Truth is, following through with Thoreau’s plan and implementing his principles into actions is difficult. A primary example of such difficulty can be seen in the opposition and danger both Gandhi and King, Jr. experienced during their attempts at civil disobedience. My belief is that, as government becomes larger and more powerful, it becomes increasingly more difficult to execute true “Civil Disobedience,” as Thoreau sees it.
The particular type of disobedience I am referencing is the type Thoreau promotes; complete disassociation from an unjust government. Obviously, I’m not talking about civil disobedience in the form of disobeying a ridiculous traffic law or protesting at a proposed historical demolition site. Truthfully, these are forms of civil disobedience. Rather, what Thoreau suggests is a form of extreme individualism. He recommends complete and total disassociation from one’s government. He contends that a person’s first obligation is to do what he believes is right and not to follow the law dictated by the majority. When a government is unjust, a person should refuse to follow the law and distance himself from the government in general. He believes a person is not obligated to devote his life to eliminating evils from the world, but he is obligated not to participate in such evils. This includes not being a member of an unjust institution (like the government). (pgs. 834-835)
In Thoreau’s time, it would have been much easier to distance yourself, as he suggests. Government was smaller and was easier to avoid. In our time, government has become much more invasive, affecting many more aspects of our lives. I believe it might be nearly impossible to remove one’s self from such a ubiquitous force.
In closing, I don’t believe this affects the relevancy of his overall message. I believe it still remains very important to exercise a strong...
View Full Essay