On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

547 Words2 Pages

Defying the Government The government is supposed to keep an order, chaos free, and corruption free environment, but what happens when the government itself is corrupt? Well when the government itself is corrupt then what it says it stands for is nothing but lies because it’s corrupt. Then it must feed the people, that it’s supposed to be for, lies and when the government does that you have a country that is corrupt but is too blind to see. Herny David Thoreau explained this in “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. He also said that it’s the people’s right to defy the government if it is being unjust or corrupt. Along with telling the people that disobeying the government will be needed to get rid of the corruption. By not agreeing with him you must either not believe that our government or other country’s government is not corrupt or you are too blind to see it. …show more content…

A majority of people in the U.S. are stuck in saying something is wrong and hoping it will change stage, along with many other countries. A recent example of his idea is people saying that the program NSA is wrong. The only thing the citizens of America have done is complain that the invasion of their privacy is wrong and they should stop. They have not taken any other action other than protesting. Standing around and telling people it is wrong will not do anything! By doing nothing it’s allowing corruption to prevail and letting the government control us. This is one perfectly reasonable reason for the U.S. citizens to disobey the

Open Document