Thoreau asserts that because governments are
typically more harmful than helpful, they therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is
no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not
also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice. The judgment of an individual's conscience is not
necessarily inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so
"[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for
the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any
time what I think right... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means
of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of
injustice."[5] He adds, "I cannot for an instant
recognize as my government [that] which is the slave's government also."[6]
The government, according to Thoreau, is not just
a little corrupt or unjust in the course of doing its
otherwise-important work, but in fact the government is primarily an
agent of corruption
and injustice. Because of this, it is "not too soon for honest men to
rebel and revolutionize."[7]
Political philosophers have counseled caution
about revolution because the upheaval of revolution typically causes a lot of
expense and suffering. Thoreau contends that such a cost/benefit analysis is
inappropriate when the government is actively facilitating an injustice as
extreme as slavery. Such a fundamental immorality justifies any difficulty or
expense to bring to an end. "This people must cease to hold slaves, and to
make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence
as a people."[8]
Thoreau tells his audience that they cannot blame
this problem solely on pro-slavery Southern politicians, but must put the blame
on those in, for instance, Massachusetts, "who are more interested in
commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do
justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may... There are
thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in
effect do nothing to put an end to them."[9] (See also: Thoreau's Slavery in Massachusetts which also
advances this argument.)
He exhorts people not to just wait passively for
an opportunity to vote for justice, because voting for justice is as
ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be
just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to
fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit
injustice and not to give injustice your practical support.
Paying taxes is one way in which otherwise well-meaning people collaborate
in injustice. People who proclaim that the war in Mexico is wrong and that it
is wrong to enforce slavery contradict themselves if they fund both things by
paying taxes. Thoreau points out that the same people who applaud soldiers for
refusing to fight an unjust war are not themselves willing to refuse to fund
the government that started the war.
In a constitutional republic like the United
States, people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try
to use the political process to change the law, but to obey and respect the law
until it is changed. But if the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking
process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then Thoreau
says the law deserves no respect and it should be broken. In the case of the
United States, the Constitution itself enshrines the
institution of slavery, and therefore falls under this condemnation. Abolitionists,
in Thoreau's opinion, should completely withdraw their support of the
government and stop paying taxes, even if this means courting
imprisonment.
Under a government which
imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.… where
the State places those who are not with her, but against her,–
the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.… Cast
your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. 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. If the
alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the
State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay
their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as
it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed
innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if
any such is possible.[10]
Because the government will retaliate, Thoreau
says he prefers living simply because he therefore has less to lose. "I
can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts…. It costs me less in every
sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey.
I should feel as if I were worth less in that case."[11]
He was briefly imprisoned for refusing to pay the
poll tax,
but even in jail felt freer than the people outside. He considered it an
interesting experience and came out of it with a new perspective on his
relationship to the government and its citizens. (He was released the next day
when "someone interfered, and paid that tax.")[12]
Thoreau said he was willing to pay the highway
tax, which went to pay for something of benefit to his neighbors, but that he
was opposed to taxes that went to support the government itself—even if he
could not tell if his particular contribution would eventually be spent on an
unjust project or a beneficial one. "I simply wish to refuse allegiance to
the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually."[13]
Because government is man-made, not an element of
nature or an act of God, Thoreau hoped that its makers could be
reasoned with. As governments go, he felt, the U.S. government, with all its
faults, was not the worst and even had some admirable qualities. But he felt we
could and should insist on better. "The progress from an absolute to a
limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward
a true respect for the individual.… Is a democracy, such as we know it, the
last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step
further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? 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."[14]
ምንም አስተያየቶች የሉም:
አስተያየት ይለጥፉ