Henry David Thoreau "Resistance to Civil Government"

"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?" -Henry David Thoreau


"[Henry David Thoreau is] a self-contained, unsocial being, a troglodyte of sorts" -Brooks Atkinson (a conservative critic from the 1920's)

"Resistance to Civil Government" is an essay that mainly attacks the presence of an unreliable, soulless and futile government that does not allow for a way of living that a person with a true consciousness can maintain. According to Thoreau, it is amoral for a person to live in this type of environment have a responsibility "as men", or women to either change it, or to actively removes themselves from the system that dehumanizes their day to day life. He argues that even democracy at its core is flawed, because a majority does not have anything to do with morals or virtue, it is merely another way to express a number. He asks that, even at risk of imprisonment, that citizens not fund or acquiesce to the demands of the government.

Thoreau's main assumption, upon which all else is founded, is that the Government does more harm than good. In many ways, I agree with this sentiment. he separates himself from the "other anti-government" group by saying that he does not wish for an immediate cessation of government (though it is his future hope), but rather, (in the meantime) a better government. It seems to me that he understood, at least on these terms, that a certain compromise is expected to need to occur.

It is true that most of Thoreau's opponents stated that his main downfall was his unbridled optimism towards a Utopian fantasy which did not allow to compromise his beliefs, but, rather than setting out a direct "plan of attack", he instead takes the steps towards clearly identifying the flaws that illustrate the need for a change in the first place. I don't think that many people in the past or present would be able to encompass what Thoreau asks of them, and still lead a productive life. He, himself, said that he chose to live simply because it would mean that he had less to lose. With no family, he did not need to support any comforts other than his own. Not many breadwinners would make this type of sacrifice if it meant abandoning their families.

These unhappy remarks are not meant to take away from the significance of his ideas and the remarkable strength encompassed that is characteristic of an uncompromising man who follows his conscience. As a hero of the American intellectual and revolutionaries to come, his role in the history of the US is undoubtedly tremendously significant. He continues to inspire radical thinking towards government even till today. A personal favorite of mine, who was definitely influenced (and perhaps has taken it a few steps further), is Derrick Jensen (link to Jensen talking about civilization and enlightenment) who asks for the end of civilization as we know it in his work Endgame.