On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.

Henry David Thoreau supports laissez-faire capitalism, as shown in his opening remark “That government is best which governs least” (Thoreau 1). This is a policy where the government has little or no interference in its people’s economic and political affairs. He believes that this way, he will not have to pay property taxes which fund the Mexican-American War, which Thoreau thinks is pointless. Even so, America without government intervention would be very

different. There would not be regulations on food and drugs, which would endanger the safety and health of the people. There would clearly be a tragedy with no precautions to keep people free from harm day to day. Furthermore, American workers would not be protected by laws without government involvement. For example, there would be no restrictions on discrimination in the workforce, which would be devastatingly unfair to all those who are oppressed in America. There would also be no rules regarding child labor, which is physically and mentally dangerous to a child. No minimum wage would be required for workers, and without that, workers would have to work long, exhausting hours to be paid enough to support their families. Workers must be protected by laws for their own good. Though Thoreau thinks otherwise, government interference is necessary to ensure the safety of American people.
Another flaw in Thoreau’s idea is that rulings should not be based on the majority. He believes that majority rule is unjust: “But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?” (Thoreau 4). Thoreau believes that voters only go along with what everyone else is doing. His wish of government based on individual conscience is unrealistic. If the ruling was based on one man’s conscience, no good would be done. What one man thinks is right, another man could think is unjust. Though Thoreau sees voting as a game, it is imperative for deciding who should govern the state. There is no way to know if men are truly voting off of their conscience or with the majority; but if each man is voting based off of his thoughts, if the majority wins it must be best fit for the population. Thoreau feels that government should be centered around the individual: “There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly” (Thoreau 47). This is not possible, for there are too many individuals– this system would circle back to being a majority basis as the only way of being truly based on individuals. When each individual’s conscience is combined, there will still be majorities and minorities. Thoreau must not have thought his ideas out fully before he wrote them down. In opposition to his belief, the majority rule will still be best fit for the population if it is strongest.
As Henry David Thoreau clearly demonstrates his views on government in the essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” his scorn does not outweigh the benefits and necessity of organized democracy.

Without any government intervention, the state would be in shambles with no regulations on food, drugs, or the workforce. As for government based on conscience, Thoreau’s argument falls flat when he fails to recognize that majority rule is the only fair rule. Thoreau needed to learn that when friction takes over a machine, the machine is to be fixed, not thrown away. Evidently, Henry David Thoreau’s argument against organized government in America is much too flawed to be

valid.