“Civil Disobedience”

by Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” essay has inspired many people, including Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. In the essay, Thoreau doesn’t waste time. He spells out his opinions quickly and boldly. He calls for a radical course of action: a person should be willing to break the law if the government is doing something immoral. I don’t agree with his position.

I think he undermines the main purpose of government. A person who follows Thoreau’s suggestions would be damaging his or her own situation in the long run. That’s because our system is built on a social contract somewhat like Rousseau described; we need to sacrifice certain individual liberties for the good of the larger community. The larger community provides justice and defence, as well as a host of other benefits such as highway systems and snow removal. This system depends on individuals working together in accordance with laws. If people walk off or break laws just because that they disagree then the whole system is threatened. As Rousseau might say, once one person breaks the contract, the whole pact is off.

Furthermore, governments, because they must take into account a great many interests, need lengthier processes for discussing and evaluating decisions. Though Thoreau is right to claim that individuals enjoy an “alacrity” that governments do not, governments could not properly address so many citizens needs and desires without taking more time and care in the process. For example, it may only take me ten seconds to decide what I want to happen to guns in this country. But a government, in answering to and answering for thousands and often millions, rightfully slows down, surveys public opinion, and proceeds slowly and methodically to make sure a communal answer is the right one. If they moved too fast, they would risk grossly offending, if not hurting a large portion of the citizens.

My larger point is that Thoreau’s fundamental position only makes sense in general terms when you’re thinking only of yourself. That, to me, is his central mistake. I feel he fails to acknowledge the required individual compromise and collective decision-making a government must account for in order to work. Were we to act so individually, I wonder whether we would return to a more medieval--even primal--anarchy which may have been the incentive for moving to a social form of government in the first place.

Maybe during Thoreau’s time it appeared that too many people were blindly following the law and the traditions of society. But we live in times when protests and cheating and white collar crime are rampant. Thoreau’s advice might have been better for the people of his age than it is for people today. Today, we need writers stressing the reasons it’s important to obey laws and work within the system.

copied (and slightly revised) from: http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/pobrien/thoreau.htm