The Sift, Thoreau, and Civil Disobedience
I don't know how this thread will be received or whether or not it belongs here, but I don't want to get flamed again so if you tend to become upset easily, please disregard the following. Or just flame me. Whatever you want.
I've been thinking about Henry David Thoreau's famous essay, originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government", but now commonly known as "Civil Disobedience". The second time I read it, it reminded me of VideoSift. I started thinking about some of the outraged comments that I sometimes read here regarding the US government. I've heard Bush called a "filthy murderer" and worse, and I have occassionally wondered, "Well, why don't you do something about it?"
I am NOT criticizing you for failing to take direct action. Goodness knows that I don't do much but talk and vote. I'm just trying to raise a question.
I'm using the folks of VS as examples of people who are outraged by certain actions of our government, like the War in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. I have also been unhappy with the government of late, but I haven't been so morally outraged that I felt civil disobedience was in order. You, on the other hand, may have felt that you have been powerless in the face of atrocities. In the following essay, Thoreau offers a method of bringing about change that inspired both Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. He felt that it was the duty of all moral people to resist unjust government.
Do you think that Thoreau has a point? Are we a nation of outraged do-nothings? Do you think that it is our duty to disobey a government that we believe is committing atrocities? What sort of crime (if any) is bad enough to warrant such action? Is this an outdated idea? Would it be practical or useful today?
I know that the essay is REALLY long, but if you've never read it you should. It's an essential piece of literature and well worth your time. Besides, you won't be able to make a good argument if you haven't read it. I'll paste it here for your convenience.
I've been thinking about Henry David Thoreau's famous essay, originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government", but now commonly known as "Civil Disobedience". The second time I read it, it reminded me of VideoSift. I started thinking about some of the outraged comments that I sometimes read here regarding the US government. I've heard Bush called a "filthy murderer" and worse, and I have occassionally wondered, "Well, why don't you do something about it?"
I am NOT criticizing you for failing to take direct action. Goodness knows that I don't do much but talk and vote. I'm just trying to raise a question.
I'm using the folks of VS as examples of people who are outraged by certain actions of our government, like the War in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. I have also been unhappy with the government of late, but I haven't been so morally outraged that I felt civil disobedience was in order. You, on the other hand, may have felt that you have been powerless in the face of atrocities. In the following essay, Thoreau offers a method of bringing about change that inspired both Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. He felt that it was the duty of all moral people to resist unjust government.
Do you think that Thoreau has a point? Are we a nation of outraged do-nothings? Do you think that it is our duty to disobey a government that we believe is committing atrocities? What sort of crime (if any) is bad enough to warrant such action? Is this an outdated idea? Would it be practical or useful today?
I know that the essay is REALLY long, but if you've never read it you should. It's an essential piece of literature and well worth your time. Besides, you won't be able to make a good argument if you haven't read it. I'll paste it here for your convenience.
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
by Henry David Thoreau
[1849, original title: Resistance to Civil Government]
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievious persons who put obstructions on the railroads.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents on injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,
"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where out hero was buried."
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:
"I am too high born to be propertied,
To be a second at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."
He who gives himself entirely to his fellow men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them in pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.
How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.
All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the "Duty of Submission to Civil Government," resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that "so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that it, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniencey, it is the will of God. . .that the established government be obeyed--and no longer. This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other." Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well and an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.
In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?
"A drab of stat,
a cloth-o'-silver slut,
To have her train borne up,
and her soul trail in the dirt."
Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, neat at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not as materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man. But it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.
I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. O for a man who is a man, and, and my neighbor says, has a bone is his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow--one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund to the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.
It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico--see if I would go"; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.
The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves--the union between themselves and the State--and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in same relation to the State that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union which have prevented them from resisting the State?
How can a man be satisfied to entertain and opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see to it that you are never cheated again. Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divided States and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?
One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offense never contemplated by its government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate, penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who put him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.
If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth--certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.
As for adopting the ways of the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body.
I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.
I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with--for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel--and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well that he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he will treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborlines without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action. I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name--if ten honest men only--ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State's ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister--though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her--the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject of the following winter.
Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less despondent spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race should find them; on that separate but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her--the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.
I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods--though both will serve the same purpose--because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man--not to make any invidious comparison--is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as that are called the "means" are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. "Show me the tribute-money," said he--and one took a penny out of his pocket--if you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar's government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it. "Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God those things which are God's"--leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.
When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said: "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are subjects of shame." No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant Southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.
Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the Church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. "Pay," it said, "or be locked up in the jail." I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster; for I was not the State's schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the Church. However, as the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing: "Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any society which I have not joined." This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find such a complete list.
I have paid no poll tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated my as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was. I did nor for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.
Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior with or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money our your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man.
The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirtsleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the doorway, when I entered. But the jailer said, "Come, boys, it is time to lock up"; and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as "a first-rate fellow and clever man." When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably neatest apartment in town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest an, of course; and as the world goes, I believe he was. "Why," said he, "they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it." As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.
He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw that if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even there there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.
I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.
It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town clock strike before, not the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village inn--a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.
In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left, but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.
When I came out of prison--for some one interfered, and paid that tax--I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a gray-headed man; and yet a change had come to my eyes come over the scene--the town, and State, and country, greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are that in their sacrifices to humanity they ran no risks, not even to their property; that after all they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight through useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.
It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the jail window, "How do ye do?" My neighbors did not this salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's to get a shoe which was mender. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended show, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour--for the horse was soon tackled--was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen.
This is the whole history of "My Prisons."
I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man a musket to shoot one with--the dollar is innocent--but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases.
If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property, or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.
This, then is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his actions be biased by obstinacy or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.
I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well, they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think again, This is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill will, without personal feelings of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker for fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.
I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed, I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people to discover a pretext for conformity.
"We must affect our country as our parents,
And if at any time we alienate
Out love or industry from doing it honor,
We must respect effects and teach the soul
Matter of conscience and religion,
And not desire of rule or benefit."
I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable, and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?
However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.
I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all tim, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind's range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom an eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of '87. "I have never made an effort," he says, "and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which various States came into the Union." Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, "Because it was part of the original compact--let it stand." Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect--what, for instance, it behooves a man to do here in American today with regard to slavery--but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer to the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man--from which what new and singular of social duties might be inferred? "The manner," says he, "in which the governments of the States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under the responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me and they never will. [These extracts have been inserted since the lecture was read -HDT]
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humanity; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountainhead.
No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which t may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free trade and of freed, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.
The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to--for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well--is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
by Henry David Thoreau
[1849, original title: Resistance to Civil Government]
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievious persons who put obstructions on the railroads.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents on injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,
"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where out hero was buried."
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:
"I am too high born to be propertied,
To be a second at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."
He who gives himself entirely to his fellow men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them in pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.
How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.
All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the "Duty of Submission to Civil Government," resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that "so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that it, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniencey, it is the will of God. . .that the established government be obeyed--and no longer. This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other." Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well and an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.
In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?
"A drab of stat,
a cloth-o'-silver slut,
To have her train borne up,
and her soul trail in the dirt."
Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, neat at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not as materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man. But it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.
I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. O for a man who is a man, and, and my neighbor says, has a bone is his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow--one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund to the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.
It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico--see if I would go"; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.
The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves--the union between themselves and the State--and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in same relation to the State that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union which have prevented them from resisting the State?
How can a man be satisfied to entertain and opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see to it that you are never cheated again. Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divided States and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?
One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offense never contemplated by its government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate, penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who put him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.
If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth--certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.
As for adopting the ways of the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body.
I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.
I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with--for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel--and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well that he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he will treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborlines without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action. I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name--if ten honest men only--ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State's ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister--though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her--the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject of the following winter.
Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less despondent spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race should find them; on that separate but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her--the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.
I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods--though both will serve the same purpose--because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man--not to make any invidious comparison--is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as that are called the "means" are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. "Show me the tribute-money," said he--and one took a penny out of his pocket--if you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar's government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it. "Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God those things which are God's"--leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.
When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said: "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are subjects of shame." No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant Southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.
Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the Church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. "Pay," it said, "or be locked up in the jail." I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster; for I was not the State's schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the Church. However, as the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing: "Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any society which I have not joined." This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find such a complete list.
I have paid no poll tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated my as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was. I did nor for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.
Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior with or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money our your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man.
The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirtsleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the doorway, when I entered. But the jailer said, "Come, boys, it is time to lock up"; and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as "a first-rate fellow and clever man." When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably neatest apartment in town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest an, of course; and as the world goes, I believe he was. "Why," said he, "they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it." As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.
He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw that if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even there there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.
I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.
It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town clock strike before, not the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village inn--a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.
In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left, but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.
When I came out of prison--for some one interfered, and paid that tax--I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a gray-headed man; and yet a change had come to my eyes come over the scene--the town, and State, and country, greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are that in their sacrifices to humanity they ran no risks, not even to their property; that after all they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight through useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.
It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the jail window, "How do ye do?" My neighbors did not this salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's to get a shoe which was mender. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended show, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour--for the horse was soon tackled--was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen.
This is the whole history of "My Prisons."
I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man a musket to shoot one with--the dollar is innocent--but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases.
If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property, or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.
This, then is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his actions be biased by obstinacy or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.
I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well, they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think again, This is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill will, without personal feelings of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker for fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.
I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed, I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people to discover a pretext for conformity.
"We must affect our country as our parents,
And if at any time we alienate
Out love or industry from doing it honor,
We must respect effects and teach the soul
Matter of conscience and religion,
And not desire of rule or benefit."
I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable, and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?
However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.
I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all tim, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind's range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom an eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of '87. "I have never made an effort," he says, "and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which various States came into the Union." Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, "Because it was part of the original compact--let it stand." Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect--what, for instance, it behooves a man to do here in American today with regard to slavery--but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer to the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man--from which what new and singular of social duties might be inferred? "The manner," says he, "in which the governments of the States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under the responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me and they never will. [These extracts have been inserted since the lecture was read -HDT]
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humanity; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountainhead.
No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which t may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free trade and of freed, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.
The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to--for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well--is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
38 Comments
sallyjuneForgo bathing and eat bark and poke salad for a season or two and see how expedient some government is to you there thepinky. HD was and is correct, governments suck ass that suck the most. That same year Fyodor Dostoevsky is sentenced to death and the Stanley brothers are born to later build the first steam car in 1897. Good luck on your book report, sister.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
I'm thinking this is a *philosophy post. (moving to channel talks)
gwiz665It is indeed your obligation to resist, if your government, squad leader, general, police captain etc. does something that according to the law is wrong. If you do something just because you feel it is wrong, then you're in a gray area. I think there are different degrees of how "wrong" it can be, and there are very much difference in what kind of opposition you can do.
We have a media license in Denmark that we have to pay if we have a TV or computer with broadband. It's predicated on the fact that we apparently all watch the state controlled TV channel. I don't, so I refuse to pay it. I do not destroy the network building or something similar, my civil disobedience only covers my self - I do not force anyone else, except by not paying.
Someone like the dude that shot the abortion doctor would say that he did what he felt was morally right too, but he is well into the black part of the gray area. He is forcing his opinion on all else by murdering the doctor - it's like murdering a bank teller for charging you interests.
I am a pretty *law-abiding person, and I do think that all quarrels should be dealt with under the law. When I see the atrocities that the Bush administration has done against human rights, I do feel that they ought to stand trial - somewhere. They've done far worse than anyone ANYONE they've had in Gitmo. I mean, they're worse than Osama himself, for Christs sake.
siftbotAdding post to channels (Law) - requested by gwiz665.
rottenseedI tend to prefer the cathartic angry burst to release any frustration I have over the way things are. I guess that's the only way I know because I don't have a good plan as to how to make things better. Frankly, I think we have it pretty good compared to other times and other places and government infrastructure has a lot to do with that. I guess I don't know how to chop off the head of the beast without killing the whole thing. My only plan is to continue to educate myself so I can make more money since it seems like rich people like the government (except for taxes). I don't even care to be educated as somebody that can change the system from the inside. That doesn't interest me. I just wanna live really well and bitch about my nation whenever I please.
The police state we've come to, on the other hand...that's something that I'd be more willing to fight, but I'd never plan it, and I know I'd never win.
dgandhiI think CD is over. The point in history in which it was effective in the US has passed. First world governments don't generally abuse their citizens, they abuse people in other lands, and it is profitable and easy to do.
The externalization of misery and death which our government/economic system create are no longer dumped in our back yards, they are dumped over seas, where we can have little effect. We still have some holdovers from the old way, racial socio-economic disparity is still a problem, but our gov/economy does not really care if it is solved. Racism isn't the lynch-pin of economic oppression any more, it's just a tool for political pandering.
If lots of people are not willing to be beaten unconscious trying to stop something, then CD does not work. Add to that the fact that here is very little we can actually stop, since very little actually happens here any more, and you have a perfect recipe for inefficacy. Apathy is only a rational response to inefficacy.
rottenseed^wow...well said.
dystopianfuturetodayYou are speaking of what is commonly referred to as Slacktivism.
(paraphrased from wiki)
[Slacktivism is slacker activism. The word is considered a pejorative term that describes taking "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction.
Examples of activities labeled as "slacktivist" include signing internet petitions, the wearing of wristbands with political messages, putting a ribbon magnet on a vehicle, joining a Facebook group, posting issue-oriented YouTube videos, complaining in chat rooms and comment threads or taking part in short-term boycotts.]
rottenseedI guess I am a slacktivist. A lazy one at that...
rougyCivil Disobedience won't really work unless it's done in unison with other people, and done intelligently, with a specific goal in mind.
And I think CD is basically equated with terrorism in today's USA.
What we need to figure out how to do is unify and coordinate.
EDIT:
Actually, I think America is pretty much fucked and the best thing that a smart person can do is to get out as soon as possible with everything they hold dear.
Over the course of the past eight years, and to no small extent the last five months, our country has been marred by a series of lies and theft on a scale never before seen.
Nothing is being done about. Nothing will be done about it.
I can't help but think that the perpetrators of those crimes, when in power again, will push the envelope even further.
The Democrats and moderates are too spineless to address the problem.
The cons are, of course, too greedy and stupid.
The best thing that a person can do to protest America's actions and policies is to stop being a part of it by removing yourself from the system entirely.
dystopianfuturetodayWhat kind of civil disobedience did you have in mind, pinky?
There are plenty of things you can do within the law:
-Run for office - if you don't think our elected officials are effective, then consider running yourself. A good starting point is the local school board or city council. Even these small races can be competitive and give you a taste of what elections are all about. Warning: You will spend most of your time fundraising.
-Volunteer/contribute to a campaign that you believe in.
-Volunteer/contribute to a political activist group/think tank that shares your values. (If you give the Mormon church a percentage of your income, then you are already doing this.)
-Letters to the editor - Let your opinions be heard by the masses through your local paper. To amplify your voice, send your letter to many papers. You can also recruit ideological allies and focus a large number of letters on a single (or multiple) target.
Protest - In recent years, the media has given short shrift and minimal coverage to protests, which undoubtedly reduces their effectiveness, but if you can zero in on a weak and/or vulnerable target, you might be able to bring local community pressure to a particular individual, business or group.
-Lobbying - Become a billionaire and then manipulate politicians with your fortune through lobbying.
-Start an organization/think tank to further your own political ideology.
-Slacktivism - I do think arguing online, and posting videos has a small effect, which is better than nothing. I've certainly learned things on VS that have informed my world view. I'm sure political conversions are very rare around here, but arming yourself and others with information and philosophy is important non the less.
-Create - Write a song, book or essay. Make a youtube video. Put up some posters. etc....
Outside the law:
-The most common type of CD I know of is where protesters will assemble illegally, knowing full well they will be arrested. These are often coordinated with the police ahead of time, and are usually polite affairs, where the officers treat you with respect and release you very quickly after arrest. I don't see much point to this honestly, outside of the symbolism.
-Tax resistance is something that is being spoken about a lot these days, but I don't see it as an effective way to accomplish anything. At best, the government won't notice, at worst you (like Thoureau) go to jail until your taxes are paid. I suppose it could be effective if you could get a large number of people to do it, but the risks are much higher than the potential for political gain, so I don't see very many jumping on the band wagon. Plus, our taxes aren't all that high relative to the rest of the developed world. It's generally only corporations and the super wealthy that would benefit from reduced taxes.
-Armed Revolution/Coup - There is no support for either of these options, outside of the Hollywood fantasies of some militia groups.
Other options:
-Go off the grid. Like Thoreau at Walden Pond, you could move outside of society and live off the land. Live modestly without a lot of material possessions, because the things you own end up owning you. There are various communes you could join, or you could just build a cabin in the woods and have your solitude.
NetRunner>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
-Slacktivism - I do think arguing online, and posting videos has a small effect, which is better than nothing. I've certainly learned things on VS that have informed my world view. I'm sure political conversions are very rare around here, but arming yourself and others with information and philosophy is important non the less.
I think it's a misnomer to classify this any differently from writing letters to an editor.
How is sifting a series of #1 political videos here with a raw, abrasive message any less impactful than getting a milquetoast letter to the editor published in, say, The New York Times or Wall Street Journal?
It's probably better than in-person protest, now that those are essentially kept under media blackout (unless it's sponsored and promoted by Fox News). At a minimum, it can give coverage to a real protest that was missed due to media blackout.
True slacktivism is crap like making a crude joke about Obama on an automotive blog, or going to Paul Krugman's blog and calling him a commie. Or sending hate mail to Keith Olbermann.
If you're serious about an issue though, volunteering for an activist group or political campaign can make a real impact, and I've found it's really satisfying too.
entr0pyFor those of you who think civil disobedience is either ineffective in America, or a thing of the past, you should hear about the case of Tim Dechristopher.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Posing-As-A-Bidder-Utah-Student-Disrupts-Government-Auction
Here's a summery by the Salt Lake Tribune:
"Tim DeChristopher disrupted a U.S. Bureau of Land Management oil and gas lease auction Dec. 19 in Salt Lake City. After he bid $1.8 million to win bids on 14 parcels near Arches and Canyonlands national parks and drove up bidding on several others, BLM agents removed him from the auction room for questioning.
The University of Utah economics major, who has become a folk hero to many since the lease sale, freely admitted to his false bidding, saying it was an act of civil disobedience in protest of Bush administration oil and gas policies that have worsened the threat of global climate disruption and the health of everyone on the planet.
On April 1, a federal jury handed up a two-count felony indictment against DeChristopher for violating the terms of the auction he promised to observe when he signed up to bid. He pleaded not guilty at his April 28 arraignment. A trial was set for July."
What's not mentioned in that excerpt is that the auction was a last minute move by the Bush administration to give one last gift to oil and gas companies before they left office. Dechristopher knew that simply delaying the sale could be enough. Since Obama administration appointees, once they were in place, would not allow it to continue. Indeed secretary of the interior Salazar has since deemed the oil and gas leases illegal. However it's not Bush or Chaney facing 10 years in prison, it's the student that stood up to them.
Here's another good fairly short video explaining the situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njQjVuL1zzg
Fjnbk>> ^rougy:
The best thing that a person can do to protest America's actions and policies is to stop being a part of it by removing yourself from the system entirely.
Go Galt? Doesn't seem very effective or serious...
I think running for public office is the best way, practically and morally, to achieve positive social change. The best practical way is to become dictator of the Earth, and the best moral way is to stick to your principles entirely and shun the unbelievers i.e. go Galt or revolt with arms. But running for public office is the best hybrid of the two extremes.
*Quality topic.
siftbotAwarding thepinky with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by Fjnbk.
Lodurr says...I agree with DFT, though I tend to think that local activism is the best form of activism. The best contribution you can make to the world is raising well-adjusted children, or providing stability in the lives of people around you--being a benevolent boss or a good neighbor. I think it's a waste of time and energy to focus on the ultimate direction of the country and ignore the effect you have on people around you. I think Thoreau is saying a similar thing--to resist in full force injustices in your personal life, because everyone doing this in tandem is the best way to address your government's problems.
thepinkyGosh, I love this forum. You all came through with some really thoughtful comments. And sallyjune, thank you for your well wishes, but I'm not doing a homework assignment. I've been stewing about this and I'm genuinely interested in what you all have to say.
I honestly loved Thoreau's essay. It made me think about the moral obligation of civil disobedience, never mind the efficacy. I've read quite a bit of MLK Jr., and the thing about him is that he wanted to bring about change as quickly and efficiently as possible. He made CD into a science, and it worked.
He was amazing. Thoreau and the other transcendentalists were all about the abolition of slavery, but they were only effective as far as spreading the word. They got their ideas out there and it made a difference. Thoreau was obviously an advocate of civil disobedience, but it's like King took those ideas and dressed them up. He made them work.
Now, the most interesting thing to me about "Civil Disobedience" is that Thoreau saw CD as a moral obligation. In light of your comments it is evident that today we think of CD in terms of its practicality. Personally I think that this is the best way to look at it. Thoreau, on the other hand, believed that paying your taxes to an unjust government is despicable. He would probably wonder why you fund the murders that you so vehemently oppose. Never mind that it wouldn't do any good to get thrown into jail. He just thought it was wrong and he would wonder how you could live with yourself.
As the people that are familiar with my rants probably know, I'm very religious. One of the "Articles of Faith" of my church states that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Now, this only goes so far as the law is not evil. As a matter of belief, I think that we like to go through lawful channels to affect change or maintain the status quo. Thoreau and King both saw the lawful avenues of change as ineffectual and painfully slow. Meanwhile, innocent people are suffering and dying.
I think that dgandhi's comment is really insightful, but the optimist in me wants to believe that inefficacy is NOT inevitable. When I look at the force of people who are unhappy about death and devastation abroad, I wonder why CD isn't an option. You said, dgandhi, that the ugliness isn't dumped in our own backyards. This is true, and it certainly makes a difference. But don't you think, despite the comfort of our domestic situation and the ease and profitability of abusing the people of other lands, that people are passionate about this? I mean, I've heard such hatred and outrage coming from American lips that I'm amazed there isn't more unrest in this country. It seems almost incredible to me that people don't do more when they are that angry. Do you really think that Americans aren't willing to be "beaten unconscious trying to stop something?" It would certainly cheapen their words quite a bit, if you ask me.
Don't you think it's slightly, I donno, pitiful to have decided that drastic action is ineffectual before even attempting it, especially in view of the intensity of the talk that floats around the internet? Are we honestly more willing to get out of America than to try to change it? Do you feel right about leaving the rest of us nuts here with irresponsible power?
I'm not calling for civil disobedience here. I'm just throwing some ideas out there.
rougy>> ^Fjnbk:
Go Galt? Doesn't seem very effective or serious...
It's very serious.
It's taking your talents and your assets and moving them to a country more in line with your world view.
Running for office in a system as hopelessly corrupt as that of America's, and hoping for any significant change, is kind of like going to the race track and betting you'll win three trifecta's in a row.
You just don't count in the American political system unless you are very rich and very well connected, and you have to serve first and foremost the powers that be or your name will never get on the ticket.
Fjnbkrougy, I'm pretty cynical. But I don't think that we've reached the point where the only thing we can do to achieve the change we want is to drop out of society. Not everyone in politics is rich and well-established. There are always the exceptions, and those exceptions can end up doing a lot. Look at Robert La Follette, or Paul Wellstone. Heck, Minnesota elected Al Franken as its Senator. Sure, the powers that be are strong, but they're not invincible.
Even if you think that it's a no-win situation, it seems a little... petty and histrionic to just up and leave. It's not going to achieve anything in terms of changing the U.S., unless there truly is a mass exodus of beyond Biblical proportions. It's more in line with slacktivism.
It is the ideal solution if you think that you're responsible for yourself alone. I'd probably move to Sweden if I thought like that. But if you feel any social responsibility, then you can't just abandon the others to the wolves. I see your point, but I don't think we should start imitating Ayn Rand novels just yet.
thepinkyAs much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Okay, I know that I'm about to sound like an unforgivably naive, silly little idealist. I admit it. But I think that a little idealism is healthy for a nation of people who think that they are utterly powerless.
Rougy, to me it seems like you sat back, assessed the situation (at least partly from the comfort of your computer chair), and decided that the US is a lost cause and that we might as well just leave. What a cop out. I mean, who is going to affect change except for those who see a problem? Can we at least say that we tried hard? I doubt it.
I'm not suggesting that I'm some sort of noble crusader or something. I'm not brave and I agree with you that my ability to change a nation is very small. But I've been reading all of this stuff lately by the people whose ideas built this country and I'm in awe of them. No matter how bad things were they were full of hope. They believed that they had the power to change things and so they did (though it took decades, especially women's suffrage). It's inspiring.
Even though I don't agree with most of the opinions on the Sift, I would rather have you doing something productive with your energies than whining all of the time. It makes me unhappy and concerned to see people so dissatisfied with the state of the nation, complaining and whining and waiting for someone else to do something about it. That "someone" is usually the opposing political party. We're a nation of critics with very few suggestions. We need to start thinking for ouselves.
lesserfool>> ^Lodurr:
I agree with DFT, though I tend to think that local activism is the best form of activism. The best contribution you can make to the world is raising well-adjusted children, or providing stability in the lives of people around you--being a benevolent boss or a good neighbor. I think it's a waste of time and energy to focus on the ultimate direction of the country and ignore the effect you have on people around you. I think Thoreau is saying a similar thing--to resist in full force injustices in your personal life, because everyone doing this in tandem is the best way to address your government's problems.
Good point on not forgetting local activism but MLK said it best: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Civilization requires both local and global activism.
I don't think public debate is getting enough respect in this thread. It often looks like progressives are whining and bitching about everything under the sun but public debate does shift a nation's mindset. Civil disobedience brought big changes on integrating blacks but it took decades of public debate at all levels of american culture to begin cementing those changes in.
poolcleanerI dunno about you, but I have a good job that I'd like to keep. I could not afford to spend time in jail. California has an "At Will" policy and can legally terminate your employment due to incarceration. I know this from experience and it holds up in a court of law. Look up California employment laws. I'm not a lawyer, but one of my bosses used to be one and my mother works in a law office. Inefficacy might not be something that would stop determined minds who have dedicated their lives towards such pursuits, but when the majority of people are mostly spending their days being employed and enjoying (or just frantically keeping up) the fruits of their labor, despite their opinions (and especially if they have a family to support), are faced with moral dilemmas above the evil of government.
If you've ever read anything by Milan Kundera, you might be familiar with The Unbearable Lightness of Being in which the protagonist, a Czech surgeon named Tomas, is forced by the Soviets to either renounce a loosely anti-Communist article he wrote or step down as surgeon. He steps down and becomes a window washer. He is approached by his estranged son and a man who was impressed by the article, requesting his signature on a petition to free political prisoners. Tomas, remembering his wife's smiling face, declines to sign for fear of what the secret police might do.
As the days go by, he can't remember why he didn't sign, but when justifying to himself why he didn't, he recalls Czech history: 1618, in defiance of their emperor, the Czechs threw several high officials out the window of a castle in Prague, leading in part to the Thirty Years War. A war of which resulted in the death of 1/3 of the population of Czechoslovakia. More than 300 years later, at the 1938 Munich Conference, it was decided that Czechoslovakia would be given up to appease the Nazis. Here, the Czech leaders showed caution in not opposing, leading in part to World War II.
"Einmal ist Keinmal," says the author. Or, "What happens once might well have not happened at all." Meaning, we cannot ever know if caution or courage are the correct choices in situations. And, because I'd rather not spend time interpreting what I know of this philosophy into words, will quote Wikipedia: (Which is pretty accurate in this case.)
"By this logic life is ultimately insignificant; in an ultimate sense, no single decision matters. Since decisions do not matter, they are light — that is, they don't cause us suffering. Yet simultaneously, the insignificance of our decisions — our lives, our being — causes us great suffering. Hence the phenomenon Kundera terms the unbearable lightness of being: because life occurs only once and never returns, no one's actions have any universal significance. This idea is deemed unbearable because as humans we want our lives to mean something, for their importance to extend beyond just our immediate surroundings."
Some of us know this, or rather, believe this through experience, informing our actions or lack thereof. Yes, life can be unbearably light; and, through a combination of survival, providing for our families, understanding that courageous action can lead to catastrophe and that we have no way of knowing the whole truth in any given situation, do not go out disobeying the government to demonstrate.
Most of us wanna do the right thing, but sometimes the right thing isn't easily determined. I'll tell you what, though: if it came down to it, like Han Solo, I'd most assuredly fly back and shoot Darth Vader. (I'm going off on a tangent unrelated to my lack of conviction towards CD.) But in California, it is currently a time of peace and, despite having friends and relatives who are currently, faithfully blowing shit up (Semper fidelis), I am focused on being monetarily sound (and philosophically open) -- I really need more vespene gas.
dgandhi>> ^thepinky:But don't you think, despite the comfort of our domestic situation and the ease and profitability of abusing the people of other lands, that people are passionate about this?
Look at any successful CD campaign, from MK Gandhi, to MLK, to general strikes, they are all structured around a single premise, people breaking the law they want changed. How would you break the law which makes it legal to offshore industry to despotic countries with no environmental controls? how would you break the law/policy which puts military contractors above the law?
CD is a great tool for taking control of your own life, it's a very poor tool for trying to effect the lives of others.
Don't you think it's slightly, I donno, pitiful to have decided that drastic action is ineffectual before even attempting it
That is an entirely different question.
Consider the Tiller assassination, terrorism is clearly an effective form of drastic action. These acts of terror will have the same effect as outlawing late term abortion, since everybody willing to preform them must live in a prison of their own making in order not to get shot by some nut-job. People are not lining up to provide this service, when the current crop die off/are assassinated, their will likely be nobody to take their place.
Clearly there are drastic means other that CD, they are more morally complicated, but the options exist.
thepinkyI'm pretty darn sure that civil disobedience does not always involve breaking the laws that needs to change, not even in the Civil Rights movement or Indian independence. Did you read Thoreau's essay? What about the Vietnam War protests? That might be a bad example since it wasn't the most successful campaign in history and some people felt so powerless that they resorted to terrorism. Nevertheless, civil disobeyers occasionally clogged the machine despite the war being overseas. I don't think that we need to do everything exactly how it has been done before, either. I think you could get creative if you really wanted to make it work. CD is all about clogging the machine, and there are thousands of ways to do that.
gwiz665Isn't civil disobedience by definition breaking the law?
dgandhi>> ^thepinky:Nevertheless, civil disobeyers occassionally clogged the machine despite the war being overseas.
The protests of the Iraq war, before it even began, where the largest most wide spread anti-war protests in world history. The day the war broke out many citys, including San Francisco, where I was living at the time, were shut down by protesters "clogging the machine". The war machine did not skip a beat.
If your premise is that it might work if we can do better than MK Gandhi and MLK combined, then I submit that we have, and it didn't even register, because the game has changed.
The power structures of the united states have restructured in the last fifty years, in no small part to counteract the threat of domestic CD. This restructuring has been massive, and pervasive, and it has, in effect inoculated the country from the effects of these sorts of actions.
Certainly committing massive fraud in the name of CD, such as in the story mentioned above, is still an option, but one which will simply require a rule change to dispense with.
When the people taking to the street has no power, when the prisons are run for profit, constitutional rights are dispensed with when traffic is interrupted, and being able to drive to work swiftly is more important to 98% of the population than the right to assemble, then you have been forced, by those in power to choose a new tactic, or to flail around uselessly.
CD is not a goal, CD is a tactic, even MK Gandhi agreed that in some extreme cases an armed revolution is justified when CD would be ineffective.
I agree with and have lived the ideal, I understand the argument, but the means do not justify the end.
thepinkyGwiz, I think that you misundestood me. I said that CD doesn't always involve breaking the unjust law. Of course it involves breaking the law.
Dgandhi, thank you very much for your thoughts. I agree with you. Yours was just the sort of logical and well-supported response I was seeking when I posted this thread. This is why I take these types of questions to the Sift. So many of you are more knowledgeable than I that I know I'm bound to get some good stuff when I come here with my personally puzzling questions.
Thanks again.
The only thing I want to say is that I barely remember the Iraq war protests. I was only 14 or 15 at the time, but in my memory they seem short-lived and unremarkable. That isn't the fault of the protestors, though. They did their best. Maybe I was just an apathetic teenager,
What are we going to do about this country? It's a pickle.
rougy>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.
It's just not worth it any more, to me.
But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.
Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week.
Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.
It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.
Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.
sallyjuneOh my, you are talking about mass meta-programming, first you have to take over a radio or television station, or stage a series media events-Mobs do not form until mobilized with a common purpose-Start with traffic fine protests in the US, everyone has to drive, and the bulk of the fines are exacted from the poor, check-to-checkers. Uhhh, over 60% I'm guessing, and most of these are non-white. Profiling is alive and well, check any large US county's jail on any given night- Blacks, Hispanic, Asian, a few whites.
Stop feeding parking meters.
When it is safe to drive, drive. Traffic signals and warning signs are for people who do not know their terrain. In turn, license only drivers who can pass a rigorous, professional, road test. Require re-certification every 2 years. Eliminate red light cameras, replace them with people who give a damn about safe roads, where alcohol is not blamed for a fatality on the news, without mentioning that the combination of PharMaceuTicalS and booze, and the interaction of the two, was the real culprit. Hold the pharmy folks accountable. In kind, hold the Education systems and the medical establishment responsible for allowing sick people who don't know how not to eat the poison the major agri-businesses and food manufacturers crankout, leach, boil, fortify, and shit out, fill the beds-Oh, eliminate insurance companies altogether. Make their operation a criminal act, use Rico to bury them all.
It goes on, and on, and on like this until your brain explodes.
thepinkyI was being facetious when I said that. That's why I contradicted myself. I don't know why I bring my dry humor to the sift and expect people to read between the lines and understand that I'm joking. I didn't mean to offend you. My sincerest apologies.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.
But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.
Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week. Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.
It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.
Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.
thepinkyI can't make much sense of either of your comments.
>> ^sallyjune:
Oh my, you are talking about mass meta-programming, first you have to take over a radio or television station, or stage a series media events-Mobs do not form until mobilized with a common purpose-Start with traffic fine protests in the US, everyone has to drive, and the bulk of the fines are exacted from the poor, check-to-checkers. Uhhh, over 60% I'm guessing, and most of these are non-white. Profiling is alive and well, check any large US county's jail on any given night- Blacks, Hispanic, Asian, a few whites.
Stop feeding parking meters.
When it is safe to drive, drive. Traffic signals and warning signs are for people who do not know their terrain. In turn, license only drivers who can pass a rigorous, professional, road test. Require re-certification every 2 years. Eliminate red light cameras, replace them with people who give a damn about safe roads, where alcohol is not blamed for a fatality on the news, without mentioning that the combination of PharMaceuTicalS and booze, and the interaction of the two, was the real culprit. Hold the pharmy folks accountable. In kind, hold the Education systems and the medical establishment responsible for allowing sick people who don't know how not to eat the poison the major agri-businesses and food manufacturers crankout, leach, boil, fortify, and shit out, fill the beds-Oh, eliminate insurance companies altogether. Make their operation a criminal act, use Rico to bury them all.
It goes on, and on, and on like this until your brain explodes.
rougy>> ^thepinky:
Rougy, to me it seems like you sat back, assessed the situation (at least partly from the comfort of your computer chair), and decided that the US is a lost cause and that we might as well just leave. What a cop out.
Call it a cop out if you want. I've been butting heads with people like you for the past 26 years, and I've had it.
Even though I don't agree with most of the opinions on the Sift, I would rather have you doing something productive with your energies than whining all of the time.
You think this is all I do and all that I've done? I'll admit, I haven't been a heavy-hitter in the activism department, but I did a hell of a lot more than most people did.
My "productive energies" have been wasted over the course of 26 years trying to talk sense into people like you, to no avail.
One time you said something here about how Mitt Romney could have been "the next Reagan." Now do you really think I want to waste any more of my time talking to somebody like that? I'll bet you were still in diapers when Reagan was fucking up our country. You don't know the first thing about all of the harm he has caused us, and others.
I accept your apology above, but I still think you're a little shithead.
I've given this country the best years of my life and nothing that I said or did stopped or changed anything. So I'm putting my "productive energies" into selling everything and moving to a country that I can identify with, and I will do everything that I can do be the best countryman that nation ever had.
imstellar28 says...Going Galt is a great option. Why would you sacrifice your life (literally or figuratively) for a nation of lazy, ego-centric, anti-intellectuals?
You'll find me on a swiss lakeside far before you'll find me in the path of a gestapo bullet...
thepinkyRougy, this is why you "butt heads" with people so often. You take everything personally and you assume the very worst. You may have felt personally attacked, but I wasn't personally attacking you. I made a comment about your comment, not about you as a person. And you called me a shithead. That's a personal insult and I don't appreciate it.
I have been humbled countless times on this website, and I've tried to learn valuable things from people who make thoughtful arguments against me. It's becuase I'm very young and I have a lot to learn. I know for a fact that I am very often wrong, but I'm here trying to learn something and to have good conversations. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you without feeling personally injured to the point that you need to leave the country, why do you come here?
P.S. I'm pretty sure that I was joking about the Reagan thing, Rougy.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
Rougy, to me it seems like you sat back, assessed the situation (at least partly from the comfort of your computer chair), and decided that the US is a lost cause and that we might as well just leave. What a cop out.
Call it a cop out if you want. I've been butting heads with people like you for the past 26 years, and I've had it.
Even though I don't agree with most of the opinions on the Sift, I would rather have you doing something productive with your energies than whining all of the time.
You think this is all I do and all that I've done? I'll admit, I haven't been a heavy-hitter in the activism department, but I did a hell of a lot more than most people did.
My "productive energies" have been wasted over the course of 26 years trying to talk sense into people like you, to no avail.
One time you said something here about how Mitt Romney could have been "the next Reagan." Now do you really think I want to waste any more of my time talking to somebody like that? I'll bet you were still in diapers when Reagan was fucking up our country. You don't know the first thing about all of the harm he has caused us, and others.
I accept your apology above, but I still think you're a little shithead.
I've given this country the best years of my life and nothing that I said or did stopped or changed anything. So I'm putting my "productive energies" into selling everything and moving to a country that I can identify with, and I will do everything that I can do be the best countryman that nation ever had.
deedub81^Why must you lower the level of discourse, rougy? Name calling and labeling are a bit childish, don't you think.
You're being outclassed and out-debated by a university student in her early 20's (and everyone else involved in this thread) while you, a self proclaimed "smart person," lament the fact that you haven't yet left the most wonderful country in world. As far as I can tell, the reason you feel you should leave is because people exist in America with views that oppose your own. I don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless so, I'll just site MLK on Socrates: "Socrates felt that it is necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal."
In short, debate is good for you, rougy!
MOVING ON...
To me, one of the most important things to remember in regard to civil disobedience is that authority is given to all to make the world the place that we want it to be. We are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Remember that Socrates, Gandhi, and MLK had no formal authority. They were able to impact the world through MORAL authority.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws...
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."
St. Thomas Aquinas said, "An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." He also said, "An unjust law is no law at all."
While we may have cushy jobs that we don't want to risk losing at the moment, it is OUR responsibility to keep our government in check. When the time for action comes, not a job nor jail time will dissuade me from "nonviolent direct action." Our governments continue to pass legislation that slowly whittles away at our self reliance and personal freedoms, and if we keep on this path we will one day wake up to a nation in shambles.
Two things come to mind when talk of real "change" or discussion of a "revolution" comes up: 1.) There has been a trend away from self-reliance in this country and increasing dependency on social programs. Are the social programs the cure for the dependency or are they the cause? As the citizens become more and more dependent on the government, they become less and less motivated to defend the common good. We are ever more selfish (hence the rise in mental disorders and depression, in my opinion) and 2.) Living in America (or in the affluent nations across the world) is becoming a spectator sport. We feel it is inconvenient to have to: research something for ourselves, become self-reliant, read a book, get out of debt, study history, engage in thoughtful discourse, be a good neighbor, take responsibility for our own actions and situation, etc. We are so "connected" to television, the internet, MP3 players, and mobile phones that we are becoming increasingly disconnected from each other.
What am I getting at?
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were willing to give their lives for religious freedom. Socrates gave his life for the law. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. devoted their whole being (and ultimately their lives) for the cause of freedom and equality. Change takes a lot of hard work and dedication. I mean, it takes EVERYTHING from at least one man. If we want policy change, we write letters to the editor, we start a website, we knock on doors, and so on. When it really matters (such as what the world protested against in2003, civil disobedience is in order. Anything worth civil disobedience is absolutely worth our cushy jobs. But, we'll need moral justification and moral leadership. I don't think that we're past that as some have said. I DO, however, think that wading through opposing propaganda would be more difficult today than it has historically been, but I digress.
The question I have is, "Which modern day issues/hypothetical scenarios would require civil disobedience to be solved?"
>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.
It's just not worth it any more, to me.
But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.
Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week.
Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.
It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.
Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.
thepinkyI fell asleep several times as I wrote this, so it may not make sense.
Deedub, I really like everything you said, especially the part about people being less and less interested in defending the common good. I wish it weren't true.
I think that this is what I was trying to get at when I described sifters who complain and wait for someone else to fix their problems. On top of that, some think that we are powerless to affect change ever again? Yikes. This over-dependence on government is something of our own making. Americans shouted, "Please! More regulation! More programs! Here's more power for you! And take my money while you're at it!" Meanwhile, we started believing that government is out of our hands. Doesn't that tell you something? Bigger government=less power in the hands of the people. Your freedoms slowly disappear, but at first the big government is a good bandage. You don't even notice that your freedoms are slowly disappearing. (Wow, I think that was incredibly vague.)
One constant of our government: It has almost continuously been growing larger and instituting more and more regulations since the turn of the century. Meanwhile, people feel less and less powerful and involved in government. Big surprise? I think not.
Many people who voted for Obama are already experiencing disillusionment. They suffered through Bush and made a pretty passive stink about him, then elected Obama hoping for an efficient fix. Our representative system has become almost perverse in the way that we think that voting and talking is enough, and that politicians (given irresponsible power) are going to take care of everything. Obama can't and won't carry out all of his promises or ideals because Obama is a politician, not a savior.
A key point that you made is that anything worth civil disobedience is worth our jobs. This idea has been lingering in the back of my mind. I read these impassioned arguments and I wonder if anyone feels strongly enough to actually do something about it. Apparently they don't.
deedub81^Amen, sister.
The sad thing is that we're making this country worse and worse as time rolls on. We're making in more difficult for our children.
If the gov't became TOO large and began to impose upon my privacy and the way I raise my family, if they tried to take my gun away and no longer allowed me to defend myself, if they raise income tax to more than 35% of my income, if they take away my right to free speech, if they centralize more power to one branch of the government, if they continue to create laws and policies that depress economic growth, if my vote no longer counted, if the government failed (once again) to keep our borders secure, if the government interfered in the practice of my religion, etc...
If the government continues to flirt with revocation of our God given freedoms, we might have to do something. Does that make me a dangerous "right wing extremist?"
Nope. Not even close. I'm a conservative ...and I remember who has the power.
xxovercastxx>> ^thepinky:
I think that this is what I was trying to get at when I described sifters who complain and wait for someone else to fix their problems.
I'm quite late to the party but this line rang familiar for me. I'm slightly off topic here, but bear with me.
There used to be a group on myspace for people living in my county. A few years ago someone there said something (which I will get to in a moment) that I hear all the time, but for some reason I looked at it differently that day. I ended up getting into an argument with practically the entire group but I don't think any of them even understood my point.
The offending statement was "They need to [...]". I'm guessing most people, especially anyone from a rural area, have heard this.
"They need to open more stores."
"They need to give the kids something to do."
"They need to do something about all the litter."
To set off this battle, I simply asked, "They who?"
I went on to point out that WE are the ones who need to do these things. There's no entity in charge of starting local businesses or entertaining children and that nobody would need to be in charge of cleaning shit off the streets if people weren't irresponsible slobs.
The mentality I argued against is the same one you describe. People are oblivious to their own responsibilities as part of the system. They bitch about the system and what it does or doesn't do but don't even acknowledge their part in it. They just want it to benefit them with no effort on their part.
I wish I could say I took my new-found insight from that day and did something productive, but I haven't. I've given it some thought but I don't yet have the knowledge to take the lead on that sort of thing. It also happens that I don't have the complaints that a lot of people do, so the incentive isn't there for me to push big change in my town.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.