Sunday, October 28, 2012

Civil Disobedience or Obedience?

We always have to ask ourselves whether government is effective or not, and what we can do to change it. Even though a basic government upholds the law, establishes safety, and creates educational opportunities, we should still be well-informed citizens and actively participate in the decision making processes, seeking change as opposed to mindlessly following unreasonable rules. Yet, while a destructive government ought to be reformed, it is still better than no government and absolute anarchy. 

Henry David Thoreau, out of a fit of anger, tells us all that we should have no government at all, that the current government is corrupt and we are all mindless powder-monkeys. Is his statement valid just because he was jailed on the grounds of not paying poll taxes for six years? As a transcendentalist, he states in Civil Disobedience that he would like everyone to stand up against government. I have no problem with that part; as long as the reason for civil disobedience is well grounded and peaceful, it is excellent to participate in policy-making. However, his statement that the whole government ought to be done away with is going a little too far. Man has not advanced to the point where he can live in peace with his fellow citizens, so sooner or later, someone will undermine the whole utopia and take over control. Instead of waiting for that moment, it is better to maintain a government system that serves its people.    

The political treatise written by Niccolò Machiavelli questions Thoreau's statement that we should not have government at all, and that we ought to govern ourselves. According to The Prince, there must be an effective leader at the head of his peoples in order to rule fairly. Although politics are amoral, it is up to the prince to make good decisions and do whatever is necessary to maintain power, even if it means being a feared leader than a beloved one. How does this connect to Thoreau though? After all, Machiavelli did come several centuries before Thoreau did. In essence, it is crucial to have a government of some sort. If there is no effectively ruling government (or there is and it is floundering) a dictator or higher power will rise up to the helm. It would be in the best interests of America to keep a Democracy instead of turning to Anarchy or Communism (which is still not necessarily equal). 

1 comment:

  1. I completely agree with you that some sort of government is a necessity. Without a government, the entire country will go into chaos, which has happened in history before for a little while. The ideal government would be one that listens to the people's opinions and change to satisfy as many as possible.

    ReplyDelete