Comparing Government In Civil Disobedience And The Grapes Of Wrath

Government laws are necessary for our communities because if people do not agree with the government, it does not mean government decision are incorrect. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau talks about government and points out the flaws in the government system. On the other hand, in “ The Grapes of Wrath,” Steinbeck talk on the birth of civilization from physical and governmental issues. Although, many cases Thoreau and Steinbeck perspectives on government contradicts with each other however they both share similar thoughts about self-government.
In contrast, Thoreau begins his essay by criticizing the government system, and he believed that government is ineffective because of the stringent and barbarous laws. And he indicates his point when

The author indicates the purpose of the self-government by saying “the families moved westward, and the technique of building the world improved so that the people could be safe in their worlds; and the form was so fixed that a family acting in the rules knew it was safe in the rules”(p.195). Steinbeck acknowledges that these people lose their land and other people did not help them to rebuilds their life so they decide to create laws so they can create a new society with new government. Therefore, the government can help them to rebuild their lives. On the other hand, Steinbeck includes the strength of the governments by saying the government made everyone equal and connected with each other. He reveals that “in the evening a strange thing happened: the twenty families became one family, the children were the children of all. The loss of home became one loss, and the golden time in the West was one dream” (p.193). Steinbeck demonstrates these families become one family and they all depend on each other instead of being independent or self-centered. They will help each other, and they will encounter the challenges together so no will feel alone during the process of rebuilds their lives. The readers can view the difference that once Thoreau said

The journey to moving west they form self-government because they did not have any government. They had created their laws and the new government able to successfully united these families. They understand that they need to show the empathy for other people and the families learn to share food with each and they learn to help each other. The rules these people create is “the families learned what rights must be observed—the right of privacy in the tent; the right to keep the past black hidden in the heart; the right to talk and to listen; the right to refuse help or to accept...”(p.194). Steinbeck demonstrates that when people were receiving these rights, they are enjoying it because they realize they have some sorts of rights also each family member possessed the rights to privacy, rights to talk, and the rights to accept or refuse things. Therefore, Thoreau and Steinbeck had similar thoughts on self-government because they both believe the government is necessary, and autonomy is better because one cannot have too much influence over people.
Therefore, some instance Thoreau and Steinbeck collides with each other however they both have the similar thought on the forming self-government. They both conclude in their writing that autonomy has a positive impact on society, and they are best forms of government than any other type of government. The Steinbeck was able to show that government