Under the circumstance Thoreau describes I do believe that civil disobedience is a duty. However, I think that Thoreau greatly exaggerates the conditions he was in at the time and takes a very narrow view of his setting. I agree with Thoreau's arguments that when the government is to the point of falling apart and harming citizens then people need to revolute against the government. I particularly like his analogy to the friction in the machine, symbolizing that the ends do not justify the means. Furthermore, I think that Thoreau is correct in pointing out how people behave when they notice something is wrong, but take no action to fix it. I can even relate to this occurrence from my personal experience on teams where people are happy to point …show more content…
It is possible that I think this because I have the same narrow view of my world that Thoreau had of his, but nevertheless I think an argument can be made that Thoreau’s essay speaks to our society today. First, there is plenty of friction in our governmental machine today, between political gridlock in congress and mixed messages constantly coming from the executive branch. While we may not be fighting the Mexican War or internally debating the issue of slavery today, we are dealing with much bigger defense issues from securing our borders to fighting terrorism and pressing issues of human rights still exist surrounding LGBTQ and other …show more content…
However, there are a few cases of civil disobedience that would be justified today in order to insure that the government hears the citizens opinions. For example, some of the issues in today's society concerning the treatment of women and lesbians justify civil disobedience. One does not need the government's permission to be happy or have a procedure on their own body. Moreover, if the government would prevent them from doing either of these things, I think it would be important that the people disobey the government and show that they will not stand for