History
Thesis- consciousness, majority rule, personal interest
The government is the only mode that people have chosen to execute their will. Despite all these, it is likely to be perverted and abused before individuals can act through it. Most governments and all governments are at times inconvenient, and yet it should be convenient but also at its best. He believes that the best government is the one which does not govern.
Summary
Thoreau bases his thesis on human consciousness, majority rule and personal interests. He claims that people are led by the strong men and they don’t care what they do. People make the government and also the laws, and bend the same at their own free will as though nobody cares. The minority doesn’t have a person to represent them and are therefore not left with any choice but to embrace the leadership. Not because it is right, but they have no choice but to do so. He clearly state that the majority are not always right and what makes them choose a particular leader is because of personal interests and when their interests are not also met, they quite supporting the particular leader. The government is inconvenient.
The first major point that Thoreau offers to support his thesisis he compares the American government to a wooden gun. He says that the government doesn’t have the force and vitality of a single living man because the single man can bend it at their own will. He says that it is the old yet the same thing happening currently. It is always losing its integrity when it tries to portray itself as an unimpaired to posterity. He says that governments show for their own advantage how to impose on successful men and also on themselves. The American people claim to have done all that has been done and have even done more if the government would not have come in.
The second major point that Thoreau offers to support his thesis is the majority rule. He clearly explains that those who are allowed to rule for long, is neither because they are right nor because they favor the minority but rather because they are the most physically strong. He says that the majority rule cannot always be just. Not because they can’t distinguish right from wrong but it’s because they follow their conscience. He argues that we should first be men and then subjects. It explains that we should first use our conscience which we all have and then do what the law requires us to do only if it is right. We should not follow the laws and rules blindly.
The third major point that Thoreau offers to support his thesis is he talks of the individuals with nothing more than self interest. He says that they manipulate people with their power to do what they want. It goes hand in hand with conscience. If a leader requires people to do something such as ask the army to go fight the neighbors for no absolute reason, if the people in the army put the law before their conscience, they will march in large troops without thinking of whether what they are doing is right or not and fight only for one person’s fame or promotion. We have many leaders whose sole reason for what they do is self interest and therefore we should be obligated to do what is right and not blindly following laws.
Critical reflection
Thoreau is very honest with himself and it is true his arguments are true. His argument and reasoning are compelling as what he is talking about is true and we can all relate with it and laws should not be followed blindly but following conscience and what you know is right should come first for any individual. The significance of this book is that it gives us an overview of how we lead our lives and governments without much thinking and shows us how we should go about laws and leadership without bending our values and strictly following our consciousness.
Reference
Thoreau, H. D. (1996). Civil disobedience. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue.
