I partially agree with the idea that “…government is best which governs least…”. A government is there to provide its people a basis to spread their ideas. A government is there to represent the will of the people that gave it its power. A government is also there to advise its people in times or turmoil, and finally to maintain a fair economic and legal situation for its citizens and businesses. These are the purposes a government should serve, with few exceptions. A government obviously does need to govern a bit, otherwise it is anarchy, which is extremely detrimental to society. In regards to the individual, the government’s purpose is to provide you the opportunity to succeed based on our own efforts, and to make sure no one else interferes with your attempts unfairly or violently. Its purpose is also to advise and lead you based on what the collective believes. The type of government that commands my respect is one that knows its limits, but is confident in its abilities. In other words, a government that knows what it can and cant do very clearly. It would use every power it is given to execute the will of the people, yet respect each persons rights and freedom. In other words, a democracy with good leadership commands my respect. This is because it is the best kind of government for its citizens. It does everything it can to give you an even playing field, and leaves it entirely up to you to determine your level of success. It is arguably the fairest and most stable government we have developed, financially and militarily. The role of civil disobedience today has become much less intense, and is essentially to let the government and people around you know what you think should be changed. It is not still effective at all. Unless a movement had enough support for the use of true civil disobedience, the government could easily put it down. If someone refuses to pay their taxes for instance, they can suffer legal consequences that will force them to pay taxes. A government can easily use this too put down a movement, unless the movement has enough support to make it too risky to put down legally. In other words, civil disobedience has become more of a notification to the government that their is a problem you wish to be fixed, and less an active stance in affecting the way the government makes decisions around that issue.
The reading of “Excerpts from Walden” was a fairly interesting time. It was complicated and difficult to understand, and so it required a large amount of thought and time to interpret. Thoreau and Emerson share two very similar, and large, ideals. They both believe society is but a hindrance to the nature of man, and they both believe that nature is how man achieves happiness and clarity. This can be seen in both works when Thoreau describes his reasons for moving to the woods and Emerson describes his experience as the “transparent eyeball” when visiting nature. We can also see the link between their beliefs regarding society when Thoreau abandons it in search of living life to it’s fullest, implying that society doesn’t let you do that. As well as when Emerson describes how society offers us consistency with regard to our needs, but sacrifices individualism and freedoms as a result. The main idea of the first portion of the excerpt “Where I lived and what I lived for”is that society creates consistency and breeds greed and a lack of appreciation for nature. It was also to express Thoreau’s discontent with his life in society, and how he wanted to move to nature so they could become isolated. In the conclusion, he is showing how humanity tends to follow the beaten path rather than create a new one. This implies we are naturally tend towards conformity. It also implies that success can be found if you confidently move in one direction. The benefits of performing this experiment would likely be to connect us more to nature, to understand why it is important to conserve it and why we need it to survive as a species. The largest things I would miss would be the ability to reach for a bottle of water whenever you are thirsty, or reach for a snack whenever you are hungry. The environment of instant gratification that is created by society today would be the thing this experiment is trying to show to us, and therefore would deprive us of such a luxury. For that reason along with the fact that I am not particularly fond of the amount or type of amenities in the woods I do not think I could complete this experiment. The largest thing a reader should take out of the excerpts we’ve read is that society is not something you deserve, it is not something you are entitled to, it is a luxury. Society is something that provides us with the consistency we need to support the amount of human life we have on this planet, but people must prepare. In the event said society were to collapse, how would Americans fare? Are we prepared to deal with something as catastrophic as the loss of something we weren’t truly entitled to? These are the questions I will leave the reader with, and the most important thing readers should take from these excerpts.
I argue very often with basically anything. I argue with myself from time to time whenever I am alone and bored. I very much enjoy arguing with people. The worst thing about my arguments is that most of the time they are pointless. The only other thing is that whenever I am wrong I usually keep the argument going or make it convoluted to annoy whoever I am arguing. One of my favorite people to argue with is Conner Schneck. This is due to his tendency to forget that the argument is pointless, or persist fruitlessly regardless of how convoluted it gets. I put that last part in there as per his suggestion. The way I argue is fairly intense. I usually start out with attacking my opponent’s points before laying out any of my own. This demoralizes them and reduces their will to attack my points. Once they are properly disproven, I lay out my points and they usually go unopposed at that point. The alternative is that they do attack my points and prove me wrong. We usually end up reaching a stalemate at that point where all of our points are disproven but neither of us has any more to dish out. This is when I start to try and confuse them to reverse the damage. This has about a 50% chance of actually working and if it does, I walk away happy. If it doesn’t, I walk away happy anyway because I annoyed my opponent. The way my peers construct arguments is usually entirely based around my structure as I usually attack first. Usually, they are on the defensive for most of their argument, and they may do a little attacking afterward if their resolve hasn’t been decimated. The way adults argue with me is something I will talk about in regards to my parents. Their arguments consist of one of four phrases, “Whatever…”, “I don’t care…”, or “You aren’t 18 yet, you don’t get to decide anything…”, or “I’m done, stop talking to me, whatever.” Now walking away from this dumpster fire, how we can develop a valid argument? To do this you need two things, a solid foundation (a fort) and a way to attack your opponent’s foundation (guns). Without a foundation, the person’s “guns” have nothing to fire at. Without “guns”, you can’t shoot down the other’s points. Without either a foundation or the “guns”, a group is incapable of a proper argument. Another pet peeve of mine is when people try to yell over each other as if volume proves their point. Just listen to the other person argument, and if they yell over you, it makes your side look more valid. Overall, I enjoy arguing and have a fairly good understanding of how to do so effectively.