Thoreau on School Segregation Henry David Thoreau is known as one of history’s greatest critics of American government. Thoreau argues that a government should be run by the group with the most legitimate viewpoint, not the group with the most power. In 1849, he wrote Civil Disobedience in which he urges his readers to use their conscience to determine if a government is acting within its bounds or if it is committing injustice. Thoreau argues that a citizen must do what is right and not simply comply with the law’s demands. He cites the existence of unjust laws and declares that we as citizens should not be obligated to follow them.
In Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" we learned how Mr. King and his many supporters used the laws and the hatred of others to benefit their cause, a just cause, righting unjust laws without breaking any real laws. In the writing, "On The Duty of Civil Disobedience." by Thoreau, we learned how he felt about the need for a government, such as it was, and how we as law abiding citizens unwittingly become accomplices in the injustices caused by the government. He refers to his night in jail, the reason for it, and how we have an obligation to break unjust laws. The two men have very similar views on the subject of just laws and unjust laws, but each goes about dealing with the problem of injustice differently.
Thesis Statement: President Barack Obama is not the best choice for President of the United States due to the fact he is pro war, he does not put the American people’s needs first, and he is a liar. The president of the United States, What comes to your mind when you picture the person that is running our country? I picture an honest, person, with honor and integrity, compassion and a firm hand in giving the American People the best he can. The President should be doing things to better American people and America itself for that matter. I do believe that the current President, Barack H. Obama, is not the best choice for the American people.
The Unjust of Just law Ethics 110 22 Jun 2010 In a democratic state it is in never within our rights to break the law. Breaking the law leads to lawlessness and disobedience from the democracy that we have worked, or have been born into. If the law is unjust, then it might be fair to break that law as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of punishment set aside for that particular unjust law. Failure to adhere to the punishment is unjust as well, for failure to adhere to the punishment of the law is a statement that you do not respect the laws of your society. Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement.
This form of democracy ensures that each person of the country is conscious and acknowledges the government’s decisions, as well as being part of the decision-making. The quote strongly opposes the ideology of democratic liberalism, but identifies with classical conservatism as well as elitism. Therefore, the concept of elitism contrasts the ideology of democratic liberalism. The second source addresses a neutral comparison of democratic liberalism and classical conservatism. The author of the quote, Louis Brandeis, states that by both ideologies cannot coexist in the same society.
Civil Disobedience Analysis Henry David Thoreau in his essay “Civil Disobedience”, brings up many valid points about the government. The essay might be a little ahead of its time but Henry talks about the injustice of the government and how it wrongfully forces people to do its will. The government has gone passed the line and has been abusing its power. Thoreau expresses in his essay “that government is best which governs least”, and then also goes on to say “that a government is best which governs not at all.” What Thoreau is saying is that the people should be making most of the decisions in society, not a group of men in a position of power. In the American government, and many others alike, there are taxes you must pay.
Analyze the reasons for the Anti-Federalists opposition to ratify the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists criticized the Constitution for having been drafted in secrecy. They further argued that the Constitution took important powers from the states, and the fact that they could not print money under the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists’ strongest argument, however, was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights.
There are many complex issues but in this paper I will argue that the practices of our government frequently undermine the original notions of the social contract theory. In this paper, I will discuss why the current federal system of government in the United States is failing to meet its social contract obligations to the American people and why certain laws make us question the acceptance of the authority of the government. However, I also believe that abolishing the authority of government would only bring chaos into our society. The fundamental basis for government and law in the United States is based on the concept of social contract. The government's main and only goal in the social contract is to protect its citizens.
He delves deep into the cause of the public disengagement from politics that is considered to be detrimental to zeal of democracy. Hay holds the reason of this disengagement of the public responsible that it is “Resulted from the triangulating centrism of the main parties and their duopoly over a power hoarding political system that refused to adapt to the participatory expectation of new citizens” (Leighton). Factors Perceived by Hay for Political Disengagement Several factors that he finds responsible for this disengagement of the British citizenry, in general, of the population of a democratic country are something except the growing trend of consumerism, globalization of economy, citizens’ indifference. Indeed, these are the common factors that are conventionally held responsible for the growing disengagement of the public from the conventional democratic system. But obviously there are certain other reasons that evade the eyes of the political analysts.
Law enforcement officers maintain that the Constitution of the United States is their boss. They are proud of the training and educational standards required of them and do not believe that there are the same standards for becoming a security professional. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, many cities facing budget issues are hiring private security guards over police officers. “Oakland police say they consider unarmed guards acceptable, but don't support armed guards. People want to go with armed guards because they believe it's cheaper, but they lack adequate training [and] background checks," said spokesman Jeff Thomason.