Civil Disobedience: The Boston Tea Party

Accounts of civil disobediences have made their way into the paper many times since the start of this country: the Boston Tea Party, Thoreau's refusal to pay a poll tax, and Rosa Park's decision to stay seated on the bus. All of these examples represent a time of distress when people responded in non-violence to prove a point. But many would ask if this is really proving a point or if it is simply disregarding the law and setting a bad example? Well let me ask you this: would it be better to sit back and to hope that someone will speak out about the problem, or to go forward in violence thinking that that is the only way to achieve something? It seems that an act of non-violence is a way of being heard without coming across as irrational or

It ensures that one's voice is heard without throwing a temper tantrum or bringing on the destruction of other things or people. And it also ensures that we do not go on silently, always bitterly muttering to ourselves about how we wish things would change, but never gathering up enough courage or motivation to actually change these things. Civil Disobedience is an act of peaceful disagreement, a protest which does no harm to others but which one hopes will bring about a change which one believes is good. Now as far as the impact that civil disobedience has on a free society, I believe that it is a positive one. My reasons being that civil disobedience encourages one to use their rights to voice their opinions in a non-violent way. And yes, it has and will land some people in jail, but no one is being hurt by this. In fact it would be more harmful to society as a whole to simply sit back and hope for the best. It also does not encourage people to become harmful of others, but it does encourage them to stand up for what they believe in, which is the very thing which this country was built on. The Boston Tea Party was a form of civil disobedience which helped to start this