In some situations yes, I do agree that the government is best which governs least. In my opinion, I believe the government gets too involved in peoples day to day lives of just living. I feel there’s a disconnect between what people need as a human and how the government needs to run. The role of the government is to enforce laws and make the best decisions for its citizens. But at the point we’re at right now I don’t think that’s happening. In my eyes, the government doesn’t actually care about its people. Since recent events, it showed that tremendously. The role of the individual citizen is to obey the laws and live their life as they want. The government needs to be more respectful of other peoples decisions and what they value. I’m not saying they should allow people to do whatever they want when they want but to an extent, they should have a say in what they want to do. When Thoreau states “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it” I feel this is still very relevant today. When people come together to protest an issue in the government this makes known that they want changes and you’ll get their respect when you make these changes. The government that commands my respect is a government that respects everyone’s values and beliefs. For example abortion, there is a lot of different views on this topic. But I don’t think the government should be as strict as they are with it. No one should be able to tell someone they can’t have an abortion because it goes against what that specific person believes in. This is where I feel there needs to be some sort of disconnect, especially with health concerns. Civil Disobedience today is still growing and changing. People can still come together and protest something that they saw needs a change. Different kinds of Disobedience has helped numerous issues all over the world and will continue to start major movements. Without it, we wouldn’t see the world moving forward. I included my favorite picture of all times..
When reading the excerpt from “Walden” It was hard for me to understand what was happening. It bored me to the point where I was just reading words with no meaning. But the connections made were pretty visible. In Walden Thoreau is trying to disconnect himself from the world. He wants to live his life as simple as possible without having material things to help him get by. Him being on his farm is all he needs pretty much to survive. In Emerson’s Nature and self- reliance, he more depends on nature to help him get by. The connection is that they only need things that come on the earth naturally and that you don’t need anything else. Respecting the earth for what it is will always help you. The main idea of “Where I lived and What I Lived for” is Thoreau would rather live somewhere for the fact he will be away from society rather than where and what the quality of the place will be. In the conclusion, Thoreau says, “It is remarkable how easily and insensibly we fall into a particular route, and make a beaten track for ourselves.” When I read this I got the feeling that he was trying to say that you don’t have to live a life where its the same thing every day. Going off of the “route” sometimes isn’t bad when you still need to discover things about yourself and things around you. The benefits of leaving behind the society and living in the woods would be a hard thing to adapt to. Coming from a place where everything revolves around what society thinks of you can help you love yourself but also I think I wouldn’t be able to handle not knowing what’s happening all around. But in the end, it would be very rewarding knowing that you could handle with just being with your surroundings and nature. A modern reader can take a lot from what we’ve read in regards to Transcendentalism. Personally, I’ve reflected a lot on what I have and how I live my days compared to how I would live if I didn’t have all the material things that keep me sane. Other people would benefit a lot from even reading a little bit of what we’ve done.
Not doing the debate was a big relief to me. If I had to do it I wouldn’t have been prepared at all. I still technically didn’t finish it because I don’t know what a due date is. When I think of arguing about a debate I do enjoy it but, if I don’t know what I’m arguing about (like the topic I have) I’m not going to. It also didn’t help that I was the con side when I supported the pro side. I believe the way I argue isn’t bad at all, I consider both sides and I’m not obnoxiously being annoying trying to make the other side mad. It’s good to not do this because then your not really trying to debate your topics, your just flat out arguing. This might be the same for my peers but for some I know it’s not. Since everyone has their own opinion it’s hard for many to accept the other side. When adults argue it’s a bit more formal and put together. If they were to argue with my peers it would be a mess. I feel they wouldn’t take us seriously since most adults never want to listen to what a kid has to say. The process of making a valid argument was kinda difficult in my eyes. If you don’t know anything about the topic you have to do it’s even harder. Coming up with the questions for your opponent was the hardest. You never know what they’re going to say back so it really put you on the spot. My thoughts from the start of the unit to the end didn’t change at all. Developing a persuasive speech wasn’t as difficult as I thought but, I wouldn’t do it again. Unless it’s on something that I already have knowledge about and can enjoy researching it I might reconsider. But if its Single-payer healthcare again probably not. Researching this topic was a pain. First I didn’t even know it was a thing so I felt I couldn’t give my full opinion on it. I most likely took an L on it but, I’m glad it’s over.