In Advocation of Nonviolent Civil Disobedience
Laws are implemented to enforce civil proceedings in society, thereby enabling individuals to operate and function within a morally stable population. But there is a delicate and uncertain balance between doing so and restricting personal freedoms--for though individuals should not be wholly free to conduct themselves as they please (for fear of anarchy), neither should they be confined to a level by which they are unable to direct their life’s course and pursue personal betterment. When citizens feel this to be the case, they have the right to peacefully display their grievances with enacted law for the advocation of positive change in the society. For if a society is truly free, the government
…show more content…
When nonviolent civil disobedience occurs, the participating citizens are attempting to bring about positive change to the system--change which has not (and may not have) been brought about by words alone. Given that this constitutional republic is intended to be representative of its citizens in accordance with its fundamental laws, citizens are undoubtedly justified in striving for representation for the public will. This is put succinctly by David Thoreau in the poem Civil Disobedience: “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” The government should enact the will of its people, and where people see a law as being unjust this disposition is voided. A purportedly representative governing body should be brought to consider the will of its people in earnest, and peaceful demonstration is the next step where words alone
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. There were such cases during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, when there was unfair discrimination against the Afro-American community and Americans refusing to pay poll taxes to support the Mexican War. They used civil disobedience to eventually get legislation to stop the injustice brought against them and their nation. Civil disobedience is defined as refusal to obey civil laws or decrees, which usually takes the form of passive resistance. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider the law unjust, and want to call attention to its injustice, hoping to bring about its withdrawal.
From the monarchs of the ancient era to the democracy of today, order has been maintained by means of rules and regulations known as laws. Compliance with these laws is enforced through punishments ranging in severity according to the crimes committed to reduce violence and misconduct from individuals within a society. However, just as citizens consent to abide by the laws of the state in which they reside, one is compelled to preserve justice and condemn the unjust decisions of man when the social contract contradicts the laws sanctioned by God. Approaching this conflict between natural and manmade laws in a non-violent manner is called “civil disobedience”.
Civil disobedience has its roots in one of this country’s most fundamental principles: popular sovereignty. The people hold the power, and those entrusted to govern by the people must wield
This is a reason why most people believe that civil disobedience is bad. Civil disobedience is not dangerous because once someone breaks a law and harms others then it is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience will be peaceful and will not intentionally harm anyone. Thoreau explained in his essay that he “asked for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.” This shows that in civil disobedience is only used to change government laws for the benefit of the people. Thoreau also says “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.” He believes the law made them subjects and he wanted all men to truly be free, so with civil disobedience he did show he disagreed with the law. With civil disobedience people may show how unjust the laws are because people were being arrested for not
According to Morris Liebman, author of “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society Under Law,” “Never in the history of mankind have so many lived so freely, so rightfully, so humanely. This open democratic republic is man’s highest achievement—not only for what it has already accomplished, but more importantly because it affords the greatest opportunity for orderly change and the realization of man’s self-renewing aspirations.” What Liebman fails to realize is that while the United States of America has made improvements, the United States still has a far way to go before it can be considered a fair country. Liebman also states that “The plain fact of human nature is that the organized disobedience of masses stirs up the primitive. This has been true of a soccer crowd and a lynch mob. Psychologically and psychiatrically it is very clear that no man—no matter how well-intentioned—can keep group passions in control.” While disagreeing with the first example from Liebman, it would be difficult to disregard the way that many protests seem to spiral out of control. Peaceful protest for the most part remain peaceful, however some may turn violent very quickly. Liebman also believes that there is no such thing as “righteous civil disobedience” as men and women are deliberately disregarding laws set in place to protect the country, and regards it as deplorable and destructive(Liebman). To combat Liebman, a new age of civil disobedience is rolling in, a more inclusive type. With various social media platforms, word of walkouts and peaceful, with an emphasis on peaceful, protests are spread more quickly. These student led activist groups are popping up more quickly and are not lacking in passion. Many students of today are tired of being told their too young and inexperienced to be taking
According to the American heritage dictionary “Civil Disobedience” is refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. In “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau stated “That government is best which governs least, and I would like to see it acted up more rapidly and systematically” (pg227). Thoreau did not believe that the government should have the final say on everything. The citizens of this country should have rights in the decision making process and the opportunity to think for themselves also. Thoreau says that government does not, in fact, achieve that with which we credit it: it does not keep the country free, settle the West, or educate. Rather, these achievements come from the character of the American people, and they would have been even more successful in these endeavors had government been even less involved.
In Chavez's argument, he explained the importance of nonviolence during the Civil Rights Movement. He used Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement as an example of successful protest using nonviolence. Although Dr. King's example proved to be effective, after he died, several members of the movement resorted to violence which caused the death of thousands of Americans. Chavez argued nonviolence is the only way to protest violence in order to attract support for his cause: the farm workers' movement. Chavez's rhetorical choices, through his tone and allusion to history, effectively influenced farmers to protest without violence.
It is important to notice that if civil disobedience was not effective, then it would not be continually used to disobey the law. In "The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy” by Kayla Starr, she explains why we have the right to participate in civil disobedience. “The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it” (Starr 1). There are many examples of how effective this act of defiance could be. During the Boston Tea Party, the citizens of Massachusetts practiced civil disobedience by throwing Britain’s tea into the Boston harbor because they did not want to pay taxes on tea. Now, you can see that the Boston Tea Party played a major role in the United States becoming independent from Britain (Starr 1). Although violating the law has consequences, in this case the reward outweighed the risk. I think that by realizing the power that civil disobedience carries, we can stand up against ...
The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation. Thoreau says ?to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.? People should only let wrong and right be governed by what they believe not the people of the majority. The public should always stand for what is right, stand when they think a government is wrong, and trust in their moral beliefs.
Many people choose to use violence in their own ways to achieve the goals they have set upon themselves. But are there situations where violent disobedience is ever justified? You might be thinking, what is violent disobedience? Violent disobedience is the act of breaking a rule placed upon oneself, ready to accept any punishment that is to come to thee. You could violently disobey anyone such as the police, your parents, and even yourself. I believe only in certain situations one should be allowed to violently disobey an order give to him or her. No matter, one must accept ones hardships with outstanding stoicism to be able to succeed in controlling your actions for the greater good.
A peaceful resistance to laws is what makes the United States a free society. It helps hold the government accountable for their actions, it publicizes important or possibly forgotten interests, and sometimes laws are just wrong for society and the government doesn't always see that. Civil disobedience might not always be agreed upon and it might not always seem right but without it citizens’ voices would fade into the background and the United States would lose the free democracy it so publicly prides itself on. The ability and the right of freedom of speech is what draws people to the US. The ability to think and express yourself and ideas freely is why people risk their lives to provide a more promising future for their families. Without
We all know the law exists to protect citizens, but does that make every law correct or ethically sound? Every individual should know societal laws and regulations, but this does not mean that they will coincide with the individual's own set of ethical values. Because of this, I believe that peacefully resisting any type of law is an inalienable human right; it can create a positive impact on a free society without violence, words, or hatred. Any truly free society should be able to exercise the right to disagree and oppose a law but not break it.
There are two types of protests: violent and nonviolent, yet nonviolent protests are where heroes are made. Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. were three men who led nonviolent protests to achieve equality. These leaders are the center of the movements they led in India, South Africa, and America where thousand fought against the injustice. They each dedicated their lives to the cause and spent Nonviolence is effective when there are a lot of people working together, no retaliation against violence, and respect for the consequences of the law.
As long as there has been laws and human beings, there has been unrest. Those who disagree with the people who claim power and their ideals of how citizens should act. Disagree on how the government decides on their life, their well-being, all the while preaching their precious “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” to any with ears and while hearing distance. How could people that were oppressed get the rights their very government promised, bragged about, without the use of violence, without going down to their oppressors level. Coined by Henry Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, as a definition is “is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government”, and one of the most key sources for fighting for freedom, for liberty, and for the very right for people to simply exist safely.
The main point Civil Disobedience makes is that a man should not be governed by representatives of the majority put into power, but rather be governed by himself. Henry Thoreau often brings up very controversial subjects such as the Mexican war, government and slavery. He strongly disapproves of these subjects as he believes they are immoral and unjust. In many points he explains what he believes to be just.