The Rhetorical Analysis Of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience

Henry David Thoreau starts Civil Disobedience with “I heartily accept the motto— “That government is best which governs the least,” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically” (para. 1). The impression that I got when I read this first sentence is that he had some issues with how the government works. His statement, “That government is best which governs not at all,” somehow sent me an impression that he does not want a government when in fact he just does not want how the government is structured so he calls for its reformation. He explained how a few individuals get to use a standing government as a tool to grab land from Mexico during the Mexican War. I think what he is trying to convey about the government

He justified this by arguing that majority rules not because they are right but because they are physically the strongest (para. 4). I think he makes a good point here because this situation is really prevalent anywhere in the world. Sometimes the majority only represents the physical strength and not the application of conscience. Most of the established government systems, and even simple voting procedures, follow the majority-wins scheme. This results to the minority to compromise and conform with whatever the majority has decided. I almost thought that that was the end of Thoreau’s argument about majority-minority division of the society but in paragraph 22, he finally set a hope that the minority can become powerful and this notion can change the game. “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight” (para. 22). This line is inspiring because he motivates the minority to actually stand up for what they believe is right. Being someone who usually conforms to what has been decided, even when it is against my will, I felt motivated to be more outspoken about what I think is

I came to a point where I tried to disprove Thoreau’s claim that government is nothing but a tradition. I’ve got different answers when I looked it up. One article says that it is necessary to ensure the proper use of force (Landauer, Rowlands, “The Necessity of Government”). Bruce Walker in his article “The Purpose of Government” says that its (that is the government) purpose is to preserve liberty. Another article by Mark Funkhouser talks about the economic significance of a government. These three sources are enough for me to conclude that government is really just a tradition. It is supported by the established norms— including proper use of force, liberty, and economy— of a locality. The principles, the laws, and the ways in which people think dictates what a government really is; it takes nothing but tradition to build these things up and pass it from one generation to another until honest men— “the friction to the machine” as Thoreau calls them— finally take the courage to discontinue