Civil Disobedience
Mar. 6th, 2003 06:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ambitious_wenchI have a confession to make. I have never read "Civil Disobedience", by Henry David Thoreau. I've seen it quoted, but never actualy read it myself.
So, I'll read it at the ripe old age of 43, and think out loud on it, and post my thoughts here. I will post what I am reading, and my comments concurrently. I'll do it in small bites. You are welcome to comment along with me.
Here is the online text I will be referencing:
http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html
The following is taken specifically from: http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil1.html
Footnotes annotated on that page. Please visit there for some very good, if simplistic commentary.
[1]I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,—"That government is best which governs least";(1) 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 they will have.
Henry believes that the best government is none at all. I think he was a bit of a dreamer, in that enlightened anarchy is something we as a species have yet to obtain. Nothing wrong with a dreamer, of course. You have to envision it before you can build it. Also, if I understand it, isn't this a Republican view? Less government?
Government is at best but an expedient;
I assume he means it in the "ends to a means" sense.
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.
The expediency mentioned previously is not very expedient, in the sense of speed--wherefore art thou, St. Expedite? Ah, there you are--being civily disobedient. Forgive me, this is an obscure reference to my good friend Bill Peltz. I once had the pleasure of buying a plaster St. Expedite for him at a local flea market, and there are stories to tell about his relationship with this particular ersatz saint.
Witness the present Mexican war,(2) 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 is important, but I cannot take the time to verify it. According to the annotations, it seems that some viewed the Mexican war as a means of furthering slavery in Mexico. Please see the footnotes on the page listed above.
[2] 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.
I'm not sure what he meant by this. Wooden gun=toy? Harmless, useless, farcical? Is the wooden gun in the hands of the people, or is it pointed at them? Or both?
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 on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow.
Must we? I have this alarm that goes off when I hear "We must..."
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,(3) would never manage to bounce over the 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 mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.
Again, I am reminded of the Republican mentality. Were is it now in this age of "Homeland Security", and the Patriot Defense of the same?
To Be Continued!
So, I'll read it at the ripe old age of 43, and think out loud on it, and post my thoughts here. I will post what I am reading, and my comments concurrently. I'll do it in small bites. You are welcome to comment along with me.
Here is the online text I will be referencing:
http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html
The following is taken specifically from: http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil1.html
Footnotes annotated on that page. Please visit there for some very good, if simplistic commentary.
[1]I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,—"That government is best which governs least";(1) 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 they will have.
Henry believes that the best government is none at all. I think he was a bit of a dreamer, in that enlightened anarchy is something we as a species have yet to obtain. Nothing wrong with a dreamer, of course. You have to envision it before you can build it. Also, if I understand it, isn't this a Republican view? Less government?
Government is at best but an expedient;
I assume he means it in the "ends to a means" sense.
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.
The expediency mentioned previously is not very expedient, in the sense of speed--wherefore art thou, St. Expedite? Ah, there you are--being civily disobedient. Forgive me, this is an obscure reference to my good friend Bill Peltz. I once had the pleasure of buying a plaster St. Expedite for him at a local flea market, and there are stories to tell about his relationship with this particular ersatz saint.
Witness the present Mexican war,(2) 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 is important, but I cannot take the time to verify it. According to the annotations, it seems that some viewed the Mexican war as a means of furthering slavery in Mexico. Please see the footnotes on the page listed above.
[2] 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.
I'm not sure what he meant by this. Wooden gun=toy? Harmless, useless, farcical? Is the wooden gun in the hands of the people, or is it pointed at them? Or both?
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 on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow.
Must we? I have this alarm that goes off when I hear "We must..."
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,(3) would never manage to bounce over the 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 mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.
Again, I am reminded of the Republican mentality. Were is it now in this age of "Homeland Security", and the Patriot Defense of the same?
To Be Continued!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-05 03:04 pm (UTC)