Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

As humans are imperfect and irrational, they throughout history have formulated governments to deter and prevent crime, organize communities, and act in the best interest of the ruling group [majority or minority]. Since governments can be irrational and humans are emotional, disobedience to authority has and shall always exist in civilised society. True civil disobedience according to Erich Fromm and Mr. Thoreau is against an irrational authority and the focus of protestation is irreconcilable with oneself. Civil disobedience by citizens is intended to evoke change but is drastically different in methodology depending on the government type. The consequences of civil disobedience in mind, in this essay I hereby advise civil disobedience solely

If their performance is not satisfactory, the representative is voted out of office and replaced with a more agreeable one. Critics like Thoreau on page 366 in his Civil Disobedience argue against democracy, “I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that the right should prevail… It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the actions of masses of men.” He has a valid point in that the right thing to do or candidate to be elected is left to the whole nation. The decision is honoured even if it is the wrong one; the consequence for having a free society. Representatives in the United States, though, vote and act in orthodoxy to Party doctrine or supporting special interest groups. Thusly, concerns of ideologically unorthodox constituents are often ignored. Even if the representative shares your concern about an issue, it can take months for a bill to get through Congress and is not guaranteed to succeed. Obedience through democracy can take you only so far, leading some in democratic societies to civilly

However, conscience should be distinguished as the humanistic conscience, not the authoritarian conscience. The humanistic conscience is a subcategory of conscience created by Erich Fromm to distinguish it from the superego [internalized voice of a foreign authority]. Fromm defines it as, “... the voice present in every human being and independent from external sanctions and rewards. Humanistic conscience is based on the fact that as human beings, we have an intuitive knowledge of what is human and inhuman, …” (Fromm 379). The individual must dissociate himself from that government which is at fault and additionally refuse to support it in any way, including paying taxes. Contemporary Thoreauvian followers range on the scale of orthodoxy: from activists and strikers to anarchists and anti-government militias. Civil disobedience is often only targeted at a part of the government in democratic societies unlike in authoritarian societies which are completely