Civilly Disagreeing with Thoreau

     Thoreau's 1849 On Resistance to Civil Disobedience has influenced countless radical transcendentalists by promoting dissent from "unjust government." Thoreau, himself, spent a brief time in jail for refusing to pay taxes imposed by the slavery-supporting United States. The pictures is for more than just a laugh; Thoreau argues that action, despite consequences, is the only true form of rebellion. Simply speaking out against a cause is reduced to hypocrisy in Thoreau's eyes because the speaker is not so dedicated that he would risk his own safety in defense of his beliefs.

     The problem with Thoreau's system of self-government is that is it impossible to satisfy the vast majority of moral obligations that Americans have. There are extreme pacifists, radically violent activists and people of every degree in between being governed under one law. Ethics are entirely subjective and vary greatly within a community of people.

     If everyone who did not agree with a law disobeyed it, the government would be collecting little to no taxes, food would be unsafe to eat, transportation would be dangerous, and people would live in constant fear of being killed by someone they rubbed the wrong way. There is no order in a place where people have no respect for authority. Have you seen The Purge? If I do not agree with a group of people, even if its the pro-slavery South, who says that I have the right to kill every single one of them? Who says I don't? National governments have taken on the role of mediator between beliefs by limiting the freedom of the individual for the benefit of society.

     In my life I have benefited from countless privileges: geographical, socioeconomic, racial, etc, etc, etc. I cannot imagine feeling so strongly about such a moral failure as slavery and my grievance going ignored by anyone in power. Thoreau also lived in a completely different time period; rapid transmission of communication via Internet could have changed his whole outlook on "spreading awareness" and hypocrisy. Thoreau and my own perspectives are hardly comparable, so it is difficult to say whether or no I disagree with him or just do not fully understand his point of view.

     Middle ground, however, does exist. The American government was developed in a way that depends on disobedience to ensure a government "by the people, for the people." The First Amendment ensures freedom of speech regardless of political motivations. Without dissenters such as Thoreau, we would have no progress. While not everyone can run wild and wreak havoc because they do not agree with governmental law, where would we be if Martin Luther King Jr. did not write his Letters from Birmingham Jail? Or if the founding fathers never signed the Declaration of Independence? America was built and has progressed on a solid foundation of dissenters and can only survive if disobedience does.

Losing an argument can mean many things from understanding others' perspectives, or simply being reminded that everyone sees the world from a different lens you will never fully comprehend. In this case, I think it is equally important to recognize that Thoreau's beliefs do work and that some of the most revolutionary causes were started by a single dissenter who ignored the law.