In such a case, Thoreau says individuals should intervene in the functioning of the machine—"Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." More plainly, he says that in such cases where the law is unjust, we are morally obligated to break the law.
What was Thoreau's view on government?
To Thoreau's way of thinking, government exists to serve him, the citizen, and not the other way around. "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right," he wrote. To this end, he was not willing to take any abuse from the government, whether it be the taxman, the policeman or the politician. And like all great dissidents, Thoreau believed that there were few, if any, political solutions. The answer to better government was not to be found at the ballot box. As Thoreau writes in Civil Disobedience:
Who visited Thoreau in jail?
According to one account, the renowned author Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, "Henry, what are you doing in there?" In response, Thoreau retorted, "Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?"
Who said government is best which governs least?
Fond of saying that "government is best which governs not at all," Thoreau was clearly not a fan of government, especially big government. Yet he understood that most people are probably not prepared for the kind of full-bodied responsibility that would be required in the absence of government. Thus, Thoreau settled for the maxim that "government is best which governs least" -- still a far-cry from the nanny state in which we live today.
Is the Democratic government breaking down?
Democratic government is breaking down, and we are reaching a crisis point in American society. Increasingly, America resem bles a police state . Everywhere we go, we are watched as the government amasses massive data files on us. We are plagued by a faltering economy and a monstrous financial deficit that threatens to bankrupt the country.
Who read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience?
It has inspired countless freedom-fighters over the years. Indeed, it was read by Leo Tolstoy, whose writings influenced Mahatma Gandhi. Likewise, Martin Luther King Jr. read Gandhi's writings, and in turn inspired millions to take action during the civil rights movement.
Will there ever be a free and enlightened state?
There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
What does Thoreau say about the majority rule?
Just because, he argues, a majority agrees upon something does not make that the right or just choice. A majority of people can certainly vote for something that is unjust, and just because a majority of people have chosen that unjust thing does not suddenly make it a just or wise choice. It upsets Thoreau that people tend to think that they need to persuade a majority of people to be on their side before they can do anything about an unjust law. They may not want to break the law; rather, they want to change the law. That is, however, not the most expedient or surefire way to thwart an unjust law. Perhaps a majority of people support that unjust law, so it will not change; ought one who disagrees with it continue to abide by it simply because it is the law? No, is Thoreau's resounding answer. A just man might conclude that breaking the law is worse than obeying the unjust law, because if he breaks the law, he will go to jail and his status as a lawbreaker might have material affects upon his family, etc. Thus, the government makes it seem as though the remedy for an unjust law is worse than the unjust law itself, compelling people to conform against their consciences. One must take action against an unjust law by refusing to follow it—even if that means jail time—whether one is in the majority or not; one cannot wait for the majority to be on one's side. We should not obey the unjust law until it changes but, rather, break the law and work to change it at the same time.
Why do people not protest against unjust laws?
Thoreau says that citizens do not act against unjust laws, because they fear that the “remedy is worse than the evil.” By this, he implies that private citizens do not protest through civil disobedience and other measures, because without the support of majority rule, they fear the consequences.
What happens if a private citizen acts through civil disobedience?
If private citizens act through civil disobedience, the remedy often is spending time in jail. This is what happened to Thoreau himself. Thoreau protested a poll tax that he thought was unjustly levied by not paying it for several years. Eventually, Thoreau was placed in jail, and he wrote that he was happy to spend the time there because he was exercising his right to protest through civil disobedience. If the remedy for private citizens is worse than the evil—in his case, a night in jail—Thoreau notes that it is the government’s fault.
Why did Thoreau go to jail?
He wanted to protest not only the fugitive slave laws but also the beginnings of the war with Mexico. He never intended to vote in an election, so he felt he shouldn’t have to pay a tax in order to be allowed to go to the polls. He made a quiet one-person protest. He didn’t wait for a large group of people to join him so they could launch a large-scale rally and have relative safety in numbers. He didn’t think a group was necessary. He knew that non-payment of any tax could lead to arrest. “The remedy” would be the arrest and night spent in jail, following your principles. “The evil” would be to support with money those government activities that you don’t agree with. Is it better to just send in your money and be angry and frustrated about it, or to serve some time to prove your point? Thoreau is making the case that, in a so-called democracy, some other outlet should be provided for individuals to disagree and to protest without being subjected to jail time, merely for finding fault with the rules. He looks down on anyone who doesn’t stand up for himself in this fashion, especially if the person is afraid to protest on his own without other folks to back him up. He encourages individuals to act in line with their own beliefs.
How long is the free trial for eNotes?
Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.
What is a certified educator?
Our certified Educators are real professors, teachers, and scholars who use their academic expertise to tackle your toughest questions. Educators go through a rigorous application process, and every answer they submit is reviewed by our in-house editorial team.