This paper analyzed the argument presented by Henry David Thoreau in “Civil Disobedience” written in 1846. The purpose of this work was that he contrasted conscience and law. He wrote that if the law violated your conscience, then you should break the law. For example, he refused to pay a poll tax to the federal government because they supported slavery and so he ended up in jail for it. He wrote that the only place for a just man in an unjust society is in jail.
Military I feel like there is a lack of respect for the military and their families. They deserve more respect than society gives them. It has been said that military standers are higher than the country demands of its president. This is very true. President Clinton lied under oath, perhaps that is not perjury, but an army officer could do that.
Evidence: For example, in the first stanza where it says “Send forth the best ye breed-- Go bind Your sons to exile To serve Your captives' need”, it demonstrates that the narrator does not take this very seriously because of the lack of reality he uses when he states those lines. Warrant: This is true because no one would really want to sacrifice there own children especially when there are suppose to be racially superior to everyone else. It makes no sense to even call this a burden because if you are superior to everyone then you should have absolutely no burdens since your better at everything. The narrator continues by saying that they sacrifice their children to serve their captives needs which also demonstrates that it is not serious because this would mean that you are sacrificing the best of the best in order to serve and save people that are worth much less then they are. 2nd Sub claim: Another thing that the narrator does is uses a lot of repetition in order to portray the way the white man claims to feel.
14). In other words, a just law makes human being to feel important and confident. An unjust law gives a false sense of who they really are. Likewise, the Patriot Act gives a false implication that if anyone looks suspicious, they become the target of so-called anti-terrorism. The problems caused by the Patriot Act are affecting ordinary civilian, especially legal immigrants.
The men believed that violence would get them nowhere in their protesting and it would not be effective. Civil disobedience was a main view for both of them men. They both wrote from jail for their civil disobedience. Thoreau wrote about his night in jail for not having paid a tax that was being used for unjust causes. He says in “Civil Disobedience” that he felt free staying that night in jail and everyone else was not.
He describes government in such a way that nearly, but not entirely, advocates anarchy. Paine calls government, “even in its best state [a] necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one;” (6). He attempts to predispose the reader’s mind to new ideas of government, namely one that involves American independence from England. Paine accomplishes this through an ideal definition and concept of government. He describes the purposes of government such as protection of property and citizens.
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. Oppression is not something that sits well with any type of person that is under the oppression. To resist the oppression, one must carefully chose those laws that they fill are unjust and oppresses them, and once they are chosen then one can make a stand against the oppression. Oppression is unjust law that limits the power of the people that are oppressed into feeling powerless. The United States fought of the oppression over the colonies in the late 1700’s by first peacefully protesting the unjust taxes waged against them.
But defenders of the social contract idea seem to think that present government depends on a contract among the people. Hume doesn’t explicitly do this, but we can distinguish two different ways of understanding this idea: i) as a nonnormative thesis of political sociology, and ii) as a normative thesis of political philosophy. According to i), just as it is a fact of political sociology that people tend to get very angry whenever they believe that their rights have been violated, it is also a fact that people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the duty to obey government derives from consent. Hume’s reply is that this is not a fact at all; it is demonstrably false. “…We find everywhere princes who claim their subjects as their property and assert their independent right of sovereignty, from conquest or succession.
Civil disobedience is most justifiable when prior lawful attempts to rectify the situation have failed; and when the acts of civil disobedience are done to force the society to recognize the problem; when performed openly and publicly; and when the actor will accept the punishment. Many proponents urge that civil disobedience be used only in the most extreme cases, arguing that the Constitution provides many opportunities to voice one's grievances without breaking the law. Opponents of civil disobedience see
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.