I actually do not believe that “the government is best which governs least”. I feel that the government keeps the United States safe and somewhat under control. I like to use the analogy of saying the parent represents the government, and the child represents citizens of the United States. I think this shows the role of our government to the people well because parents show guidance to their children, punish them when they are wrong, and allow them to stay out of trouble for the most part because of their threats. I think Thoreau means to allow a democracy when he states “let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it”, because this way every man would have respect because everyone has a say. I do not think Civil Disobedience is effective today because the definition states “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest,” and most people need to pay their fines and taxes so they stay out of jail because they have families to take care of. Other aspects of civil disobedience still might be out in the world but I do not have any recent examples of this to share. I know it was substantial in the past because the amount of people that participated made it hard to ignore, but I also think we would not have the same quantity of people ready to protest now, as we did back then. It’s unfortunate because I think it would be a logical way to get your opinion seen by the government, but I just feel that people are not as inclined today to protest as they were back then. Mass amounts of people had to fight for their rights, and yes some people still need to today, but not nearly as many people are fighting in comparison to how many have already fought. I honestly feel that if something substantial happened in the government, and it took away from most Americans, then we could break out Civil Disobedience, but until the I personally don’t think problems in the United States are big enough for it to be beneficial or even used properly.
Thoreau and Emerson’s excerpts remind me of something being original. In Emerson’s excerpts he talks about how society changes everyone into acting and sometimes even looking the same, and how we should change and break out of society to live by your own standards. I also found that in his excerpts he explained the idea of pushing yourself to become better whether that is good for society or not. This also could relate to Thoreau because his new house in a sense can almost be looked at as if he was playing the role of God, and according to the bible, God wants everyone to be successful and themselves. I connect the thought of originality to both Thoreau and Emerson’s thoughts because they both wanted everything to become unique and not set in stone like society had been doing. Thoreau just uses a house to help instead of humans. He tries to say that it doesn’t matter if your rich or poor, a house is a house and can still find happiness. Society is really the reason today as of to why people feel insecure about their homes because society has attacked them and made people think they aren’t as good as others if they don’t have a giant house. The benefits of just going out to the woods is that you can get away from all the toxic people in your community, the ones that are responsible for society becoming the way it is. I would miss interaction with other humans, but at the end of the day I don’t think it is worth being around toxic people just for some interaction. I really think I could do it if I had a house out there with electricity and a dog. I think I could live happily if i had a dog with me. I think they’re better than most humans anyways. I think the biggest thing to take away for a modern reader is that society does not have to define you. People should be free to be able to be whoever they want to be and not get ridiculed for it.
I generally enjoy arguing with people to an extent. I wouldn’t even call it arguing because everyone is civil and hears each side of the argument, so I would call it a debate over an argument. I enjoy debating like this on a daily basis because it allows young people to be involved in world controversies that adults try to tell us we shouldn’t have an opinion on because we’re too “young”. It also helps start conversation and makes me feel like the conversation was actually worth wasting my breath on, and I like hearing what other people say about the topic. Our actual debate was a little too formal for me to actually enjoy debating. I like talking about issues when someone can say something, and then everyone listens and takes it into consideration, and then they get to speak on their side of the argument. I just like that more because it flows easier than having a rebuttal and also having to state all of our points at once. I don’t like arguing with my mom because she feels the need to shove her side of the argument in my face. I understand that she may feel that she wants me to understand her reasons, but there are also reasons to support the other side and it annoys me when she always thinks her side is right, so I stopped bringing up controversial conversations to her. My topic on abolishing the electoral college has made me do a ton of research. At this point I was pro abolishing the electoral college, but at this point I think I want them to keep the electoral college because without it, it would give the people too much power. This debate was actually pretty hard. Trying to make a professional constructive with reliable sources and statistics took a lot of research and also a lot of time and effort to construct in general. The rebuttal was even harder to create because you have to take the opponents side’s points, and find a way to make them bad. All in all, I liked debating, but I wouldn’t do it this way again unless I was forced to.