Civil Disobedience: Thoreau\'s Research on Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience:

Thoreau's research on civil disobedience puts it as the refusal by the citizens to obey laws or even pay taxes in a country. The end result of the disobedience is normally war, especially when the citizens want to take laws into their hands. The decision by citizens to take the law into their hands forces the government to act forcefully, which results in the war. However, when proper procedures are implemented by the citizens the government takes its course by practicing justice. In countries where citizens work together with the government, their system of ruling becomes excellent and the citizens enjoy their freedom. An example of a state where justice is seen to be practiced is in the United States where the introduction of the right to rebellion brought changes.

Thoreau's main point is that for a better government that upholds and practices justice to the fullest, its rights should be based on the conscience of an individual or a certain group of people and not on the popular rule. In this case, people should stand strong and obey the rights then conscience follows later. The other major argument from his work is that he wants to build relationship between the government and its citizens by ensuring that the laws are followed and the citizens are given their rights. As a result, citizens should not allow for their conscience to be violated by the law makers. Notably, Thoreau does not advocate for the abolishment of the government but he basically wants a better government ("Thoreau's Civil Disobedience," par, 1).

Thoreau believes that civil disobedience in a government is allowed to some extent, especially in countries where the system of governance or operation is poor. In most countries, citizens pay a lot on taxes and the moment the tax payers realizes that their monies are mishandled then they end up demonstrating on the streets hence stopping to pay taxes. The civil disobedience in turn wakes up the government that is forced to act genuinely or responsibly. In a situation where the government wants to use its citizens as slaves, the citizens are allowed to take action by either not supporting the government or taking action on the law. This does not mean that these citizens are criminals but instead they are airing their views and demanding their rights. Thoreau emphasizes that it's more important for the government to develop respect for the citizens' right rather than respecting the law since the obligations of individuals are to do what is right ("Civil Disobedience," par, 5).

I do agree with Thoreau's argument in the sense that as much as citizens should avoid crimes they should not just sit and fold their arms and watch bad things happening from behind and keep quite. They should fight for their rights in a peaceful manner and the government should also lend its ears to its citizens. The principle in which man is considered first and subject afterwards should not be implemented since it cannot lead to a better government as the underlying issues affecting a nation will never be handled.

Secondly, the issue of unjust laws also comes into consideration, particularly in a constitutional republic like America. In this case, obedience and respect to the unjust laws until they are changed is unfair and contributes to the need for civil disobedience. Therefore, civil disobedience is used as the proper response and appropriate means for dealing with the unjust law through the use of the political process to change such laws. Furthermore, civil disobedience may be appropriate in cases of unjust regulations because the lawmaking process is not developed to rapidly eliminate unjust laws.