I somewhat agree with that. The government needs to govern a little otherwise their would be unwanted actions happening. Some countries make great examples for that. The Venezuelan government did not govern enough and now they are neck deep in debt and inflation. The role of the government is to ensure that each of it’s citizens gets what is needed. That could be basic resources, justice, public education or even money if it is required. It should be able to keep the country and it’s citizens safe while also keeping corruption from taking place. The role of the government in relation to an individual citizen is that the government can indirectly affect the citizen and the citizen can affect the government.
The kind of government that would command my respect would be the kind that serves justice, takes care of not only its citizens, but of everyone regardless of race, religion or beliefs. The government should be able to have a certain amount of control over its citizens that allows for the citizens to do what they want but to an extent. They shouldn’t be able to illegal things or anything that can cause serious harm to ones reputation or self. If there is even an ounce of corruption in the government, it should be abolished. I would rather a bad politician that sometimes screws up than one that is corrupted.
If his essay can effect such great figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr..MLK got an entire country to change it’s perspective while Gandhi got an entire country to leave his country. If the essay brought this much change then it is certainly more than effective. Sometimes civil disobedience is the only way to bring change. I feel the only role of civil disobedience (in people that are in my age group) is to gain popularity or they do it out of peer pressure. I will admit that in some cases civil disobedience is OK but those are only serious cases in which the “victim” has no option left or if the law is simply unfair and the only way to change it is to take serious measures.
They are both pro natural settings, in addition to this, they both seem to want to live far away from society and in seclusion.
I think the main idea from the first portion was to stay on your feet and keep moving until you find the place where you can “be one” with nature. There was a part where I got a “be humble” vibe from it. When he sold the farm back for free and didn’t want the $10, he really showed that you don’t need much in life to enjoy it and others may need it more than you. Another idea that he got across was that living in a simple house (with the bare minimums) would fit you as fine as a house with a lot of furniture.
The main idea from the second portion was that God will see that you do not want to follow/be with society and you will find yourself happy wherever you are. He says life is like water in a river. This is another great idea mentioned in this excerpt. There are going to be times when life is flowing fast and times when it’s slow. There will be times when it is a all time high while at others it will be at a all time low. I personally like the main idea from the second portion better because it is true life advice that will actually help if you choose to follow it.
The benefits would be not having to deal with stupid people. There are always gonna be people that whenever they open their mouth, whatever they say will irritate you. I personally would miss all the good food that I am unable to cook and I would miss interacting with my friends. A few days alone without any interaction to other people would most likely result in me talking to myself an absurd amount. I could most likely pull it off for a few weeks if I had a few recipe books.
A modern reader should realize that the message that was being sent for to help better them. Whatever message they got out of the expcerts was along the lines of “For self betterment, choosing the natural route is best”.
Over the coarse of the unit, my understanding of argument has changed a lot. I have always thought of argument as pulling facts (or lies) out of thin air to prove that you are right. I am guilty of lying just to prove I am right in an argument but then again, who isn’t? I knew that research goes into proper arguments and debates, such as a lawyer or politician, but I didn’t think that much went into arguments that we have everyday. Finding the right resources and correct references is the hardest part for me. Figuring out when and how to use the research and facts I found is the easiest part for me.
After watching the universal healthcare debate, I saw how much research and placement of words and questions went into an argument. I also realized that the placement of your best point is important. The way I argue is very dumb compared to the way that most lawyers and politicians argue (excluding Donald Trump). I use facts but I also don’t use them wisely or place them wisely.
I think very differently about arguments now, a lot has changed on my perspective on arguments. Trying to make my own persuasive speech was very difficult. Getting all the research and resources in order was a little difficult and figuring out how word it was the hardest part. I feel like actually just having a verbal argument is easier than having to write out one. Stating words and expressing emotion through them is easier when we are being verbal and it gets more difficult over a speech.
It is only easier because the words and sentences are right in front of you. You can also keep referring back to other sources and those that you already have open. A big disadvantage is that you don’t know what your opponent is going to counter with or say in their main argument and so you don’t know what to counter with.
Overall in the end, I learned that arguments have a lot more that go into them. You can’t be like 2 dinosaurs arguing over who gets the meal.