“Civil Disobedience” was written in 1849. On page 3, Thoreau states, “He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish, but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced  a benefactor and philanthropist.” Do you  think this is still true today?

More Money = Less Virtue

On page 10, Thoreau says, "Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtues; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; and it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it." Does more money actually lower our virtue?

What’s makes the government so different now than before when it comes to resisting and overthrowing government?

At the bottom of page 3, Thoreau states, “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and  unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now.” Why is this? What changed to cause people to rebel less and become more accepting with unjust or an insufficient government?

Do you think that there are people today that would go to prison or risk their families for their political beliefs?

In multiple paragraphs, Thoreau mentions how people are dishonest about their beliefs when it comes to government issues. However, at that time it was highly uncommon for people to rebel. So the question is would people in today's society ever be willing to rebel against a government that they so heavily rely on?

What is the connection between a job and where these jobs stand on the social ladder?

Men such as militia are assigned to the standing army which seems to be represented as the highest status in this piece. Page three goes along with this interpretation of how a job falls on the social ladder. Going all the way down to the bottom comes the man who gives himself entirely to his peers; this man is seen as useless and selfish. Throughout history a job or status has been assigned to show where that person or group stand in the social chain.

Are people too afraid to be a martyr or an example?

On page 7, Thoreau discusses how those in the minority who wish for change rarely take an active stance and instead wait for the majority to swing to their side and will then actively protest and attempt to make a change. He implies that people are too afraid to be the example future generations learn from, they are too afraid to be the martyr. Do you think this mindset is still popular today?

Government and It's Affect on Division

"I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed, I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people, to discover a pretext for conformity." (p. 15)

I interpret this quote as to say government is what has split the people, whether that means the American people or people all over the world. Do you agree with this statement? What affect do you think government has had on the division of the people, and how do you think that division will grow or lessen in the future?

On page 7, Thoreau donates a section of the reading to discussing unjust laws, and what one should do if they are to encounter laws that they deem unjust. He writes:

 “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” 

This promotes questions that are more than relevant with some of the issues that America is faced with today, and it makes one wonder. How do we go about changing unjust laws? Do we submit ourselves to obeying the laws that we see as unjust, or do we rebel against the government by disregarding the law as a whole? Is there a fine line that exists somewhere in between obeying and disobeying those laws?

In the second paragraph, Thoreau says, "The American government- what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired into posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity?" Do you agree that the government has been losing its integrity since its inception? Has it ever gained any back? If not, how could it ever gain it back? If you disagree with the notion that the government has lost its integrity, why?

If government is inexpedient, then why was it needed in the creation of our country and why is it still in effect today? What would happen if everyone believed government is inexpedient?

In the first paragraph, Thoreau talks about the idea of a less governed government is the best government. Everything is in place for a reason, man/woman, at some point must have wanted a higher advisory to keep an order to things. Now, in 1849, people are seeing the problems and in 2018 we are seeing the problems government can have. Inexpedient means not practical, advisable, or suitable. Which do you think Thoreau meant more?

At this point, you will have read Civil Disobedience and have written discussion questions for the piece. Your assignment for the blog is to post one discussion question and to write four comments on the various questions posted. Spread your questions and comments throughout. Each question will be different post (in other words, don't post a new question within the comments of another question). The goal of this assignment is to create on ongoing discussion. If you post just to be posting, you're missing the point.