Henry David Thoreau's Argument For Improving The Government

Words: 1199
Pages: 5

Change will always going to be the founding source of our government and years back to Henry David Thoreau government that he faced. Our government will never be a set piece because there are many people who disagree, but also agree with the government's choices. Thoreau, a famous writer for his piece of, "Civil Disobedience", an argument for disobedience to an unjust state.
Thoreau's interest in change, and natural decay; also trying to find the true essential needs for life. Civil Disobedience should be an option for improving the government rather than abolishing it. “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government”. Thoreau’s direction for the government is to not get rid of it, however to improve the work going on
…show more content…
Often there is an expectation to be attacked or even beaten by the authorities. Protesters often undergo training in advance on how to react to arrest or to attack. Since it is defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse, in which two public agencies, especially two equally sovereign branches of government, conflict. For instance, if the head of government of a country were to refuse to enforce a decision of that country's highest court, it would not be civil disobedience, since the head of government would be acting in her or his capacity as a public official rather than a private citizen. However, this definition is disputed by Thoreau's political philosophy pitching the conscience vs. the collective. Thoreau admits that government may express the will of the majority but it may also express nothing more than the will of elite politicians. Even a good form of government is "liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it." Moreover, even if a government did express the voice of the people, this fact would not compel the obedience of individuals who disagree with what is being said. The majority may be powerful but it is not necessarily