Compare And Contrast Thoreau And Steinbeck's Ideals For Government

Thoreau and Steinbeck’s Ideals for Government Since the beginning of early societies, people have evaluated the written rights in which the government provides its people, and the unwritten rules that keep many from living freely. Henry David Thoreau, in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, discusses the importance of protecting one’s rights and using those rights to protest the government for its discrepancies. John Steinbeck, in his novel, Grapes of Wrath, presents a similar argument in Chapter 17, through the story of a community of families with a set system of governing. Both Thoreau and Steinbeck believe that individuals have a right to govern themselves, freedom to act against the government if laws are unjust, and that government should

In Chapter 17 of Grapes of Wrath, families began to move into a community with other families and learned the “rules” of that society. Under these rules, the families have the “right to talk and to listen” (Steinbeck 265). In this way, Steinbeck believes that people should use this right to form their own opinions to discuss them with others, and find ways to help people who struggle due to the unfair and exclusive laws. Similarly, Thoreau believes that a corporation of “conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience” (Thoreau 2). Governments with people who can think for themselves and form their own opinions can rule justly. Both Thoreau and Steinbeck stress that the individual has the power to live by their own morals, whether or not the government has laws that are built upon those ideals. People must find it in themselves to evaluate what is truly right and wrong. Government can never be fair unless its people has rights to govern themselves solely by their own

In the society Steinbeck describes, if one were to disobey the rules, he “had no place in any world, no matter where created” (Steinbeck 266). Even though the families had rights, they seemingly did not have the right to protest if they believed a law was unjust. Because of this, the rulers of this society have all of the power. Individuals have to keep their own beliefs private and must adhere to society’s rules, not matter if they were right or wrong, in fear of being shamed. Comparatively, the very foundation of Thoreau’s beliefs is that humans have the right to rebel against a corrupt state. Thoreau declares that all men have the right to “refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government” when its tyranny or its “inefficiency are great and unendurable” (Thoreau 3). The people must work to create a safe society, and if the government is making it so that some do not feel safe, it is the people’s responsibility to change that. If that means a law must be broken, then it must be done. With Steinbeck’s society being the society to influence all subsequent societies, opposition to a government’s ideals becomes a universal taboo. This is apparent in Thoreau’s essay as well. The stigma against rebellion discourages people from fighting for change in their society. With this, the government continues to run under an unjust system with corrupt