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 the American government, and many others alike, there are taxes you must pay. In Thoreau's time he was arrested for choosing to not pay his general taxes. He paid school and medical taxes, but refused to pay general taxes because he did not support slavery and the Mexican war, which was undoubtedly where the general taxes was going. The problem that Thoreau is addressing is the ability of the government to do such things. In his eyes the people should support only what they want to support, nothing more or less.
On Thoreau and Governmental Reform Henry David Thoreau’s argument, “Civil Disobedience,” published 1849, gives strength to the transcendental belief that one should not harbor oneself within the confines of a municipal society, but rather, live for what is believed to be virtuous on one’s own accord. Thoreau states that the public should not permit civil authority to overrule or degenerate their consciences; he argues people have a duty to avoid compliance by the majority and to avoid governmental control. Thoreau covers issues concerning government, society, liberty, and personal freedom. He uses these issues to break down the government, relating the topics to municipal reorganization and the idea “that government is best which governs least” (1). The ideas on reform presented in “Civil Disobedience,” though, are often more abstract than what the average person- an average person being one of good conscience and sense, not too radical- would be willing to act upon.
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.
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.
Thoreau believes in a government that puts the needs of the people ahead of the needs of the unjust few. His belief can be misinterpreted as a cry to abolish the government but he makes it clear by stating, “But to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” (Thoreau 830). This sentence is the most important statement made by Thoreau because it is the starting point of what he wants in an American Government. He does not ask for a perfect government but a fair and free government. He goes on to say that some injustice was far too great to overlook, such as slavery.
Opponents of civil disobedience see it as a threat to democratic society and the forerunner of violence and anarchy. The premise... to disobey a law that they feel is unjust. As martin luther king Jr. , wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law. " 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.
Jean Val Jean had to conceal his identity in order to help people. “To save from punishment perhaps a little to severe...must an entire country be let go to ruin” (Hugo 92). Once at a noble position, if Jean Val Jean revealed himself as a convict he would surely be punished. Another character that is degraded by society is Champmathieu. Champmathieu is arrested for a crime that he did not commit.
The constitution is certainly one of the most significant parts of the political system in the USA and a key feature of the constitution is the checks and balances between the three branches of power: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The checks and balances system has been argued to be ineffective which can be seen for a variety of reasons; there is an argument to be made that certain branches have overextended their intended powers, it can also be argued to restrict the government’s power far too much and that it allows the tyranny of the majority. However, it certainly is argued that the US system of checks and balances are very effective mainly due to the following reasons; it can be seen to strike the right balance between flexibility to maintain an effective government and the limiting of power and is able to effectively limit government. One argument that the system of checks and balances are ultimately ineffective is that certain branches powers can be seen to be overextended past their intended powers. This view is ultimately a right wing argument; this is because that the right want a small government which would be ensured by strong checks and balance which promoted gridlock which is against the idea of certain branches being overextended as overextended powers lead to less gridlock which leads to larger government making this issue a right wing one.
Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check. The tenth amendment took power away from the federal government and gave more power to the states. This is what makes the American constitution so unique because it restricts the main government, unlike how it was in Britain. This was the most important addition to many representatives, as they would not sign the constitution because they feared the government would overpower the states, and it would be a repeat of everything they were trying to free themselves from. Luckily, the tenth amendment has made sure that will never